Moving toward virtual interdisciplinary teams and a multi-stakeholder approach in community-based return-to-work care
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More efforts are needed to help stakeholders who are geographically isolated from one another become more collaborative in their approach to return-to-work (RTW). A review of the literature on team processes, and insights from the experiences of a federally funded Round Table Project on Safe and Timely Return to Function and Return to Work were used to inform strategies that might enhance collaboration among health professionals and stakeholders in injury and illness management and return-to-work. A case study serves to highlight the individual, identifies the problem and provides a potential solution at the broader service and system levels. It becomes evident that there is a need for a common language as well as policies that emphasize the importance of fostering awareness of interprofessional potentials and contributions of all stakeholders. Establishing shared goals, and building capacity for sustaining collaboration when multi-stakeholders do not function in the same physical location, but work virtually, might maximize effectiveness, efficiency and productivity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it