MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Working Wounded

2014· other· en· W1561409332 on OpenAlexaff
Lori Francis, James E. Cameron, E. Kevin Kelloway, Victor M. Catano, Arla L. Day, C. Gail Hepburn

Bibliographic record

VenueWell Being · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStigma (botany)Situational ethicsAffect (linguistics)PsychologyVulnerability (computing)Social psychologyCompensation (psychology)Isolation (microbiology)Intervention (counseling)Work (physics)Workers' compensationPsychiatryComputer securityEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stigma contributes to a number of negative consequences for members of devalued groups. Injured employees report being labeled as malingerers or abusers of the health‐care, compensation, and legal systems and experience discrimination and isolation at work. Drawing from research in multiple disciplines on return to work and stigma, we discuss why workers returning to work following physical injuries may be stigmatized in this fashion and outline the significant costs associated with such stigmatization. Considering societal, organizational, situational, and individual influences, we address factors that we believe differentiate injured workers, their injuries, and their workplaces and suggest ways that these factors, alone and together, affect injured workers' vulnerability to stigma. From there, we consider how the stress‐provoking and painful process of stigmatization of those returning to work following an injury can be alleviated by appropriate organizational intervention.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.382 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWell BeingSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207