The National Behavioral Consortium Industry Profile of External EAP Vendors
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
It is common practice in many professions, fields, and industries to disseminate comparative information. Absent this vital resource an individual company cannot accurately evaluate their performance against a similar cohort and therefore must rely upon anecdotal information. The findings of this study address this deficiency in the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) field by reporting empirically derived comparative data for external providers of EAP services. During 2012 the National Behavioral Consortium obtained a convenience sample of 82 external EAP vendors, located primarily in the United States and Canada and 10 other countries and ranging in size from local providers to global business enterprises. The combined customer base represented by these vendors included more than 35,000 client companies and over 164 million total covered lives. The 44 survey items addressed eight categories: (1) company profile, (2) staffing, (3) customer profile, (4) utilization metrics, (5) survey tools and outcomes, (6) business management, (7) business development, and (8) forecasting the future of EAP. Results reveal a wide range between vendors on most of these factors. Comparisons were also conducted between vendors based on market size, country, and pricing model. Implications for operational practice and business development are discussed along with considerations for future research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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