MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983989240 · doi:10.1300/j022v18n03_02

Ideas on Best Practices for Employee Assistance Program Policies

2003· article· en· W1983989240 on OpenAlexaff
Rick Csiernik

Bibliographic record

VenueEmployee Assistance Quarterly · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)GuidelineEmployee assistanceBest practiceStatement (logic)Value (mathematics)ReferralBusinessPublic relationsMechanism (biology)NursingComputer sciencePolitical scienceMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Policies are the foundation upon which Employee Assistance Programs are created. Despite this, little literature exists concerning what should be included in a formal policy. An outline is provided recommending attributes that would be of value to include and a mechanism to evaluate new and existing policies. The best practices guideline includes what should be included in an opening statement of principles and what procedures should be put in place for referral, monitoring and evaluation. Recommended responsibilities for program development are also included, as are recommendations regarding functions for different positions within the workplace with respect to an EAP.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations11
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmployee Assistance QuarterlySame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207