MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967102692 · doi:10.1080/15555240903358702

Reasons for Adopting and Not Adopting: Employee Assistance and Drug Testing Programs in Canada

2010· article· en· W1967102692 on OpenAlexaffabout
E. Keay, Scott Macdonald, Pierre Durand, R. Csiernik, T. Cameron Wild

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Workplace Behavioral Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthWestern UniversityUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbsenteeismEmployee assistanceBusinessProductivityWork (physics)Public relationsEmployee moralePerceptionOccupational safety and healthMarketingPsychologyMedicineSocial psychologyPolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian employers with 100 or more employees were surveyed about their Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and drug testing program (DTP) implementation. The results indicate that EAP adoption relates to employee well-being, increased employee morale, increasing productivity, and reducing absenteeism. EAPs were not adopted to conform to industry expectations or due to a negotiated contract with the union. Implementing a DTP was to reduce work accidents and to deter drug use. Not implementing a DTP was based upon the perception that there was no need, presumably due to low workplace prevalence of drug use and or job accidents.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.159
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Workplace Behavioral HealthSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207