MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008307858 · doi:10.1177/027046760102100505

Returning to Work After Illness or Injury: The Role of Fairness

2001· article· en· W2008307858 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Science Technology & Society · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAdaptabilityCoping (psychology)Mental illnessDiseaseCreativityMental healthSocial psychologyClinical psychologyMedicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research has confirmed the existence of a robust relationship between certain conditions of work (high demand/low control, high effort/low reward) and a variety of adverse health outcomes including cardiovascular disease, mental disorders, and immune system dysfunctions. Recently, these same conditions have been implicated in the defeat of certain capacities, such as adaptability, coping, ability, memory, and creativity. Such conditions appear also to influence the likelihood of making successful recovery from illness or injury and of returning to productive employment. The dynamic processes linking these conditions and outcomes nonetheless remains somewhat unclear. In this article, the role of fairness as a mediator of these connections is explored. In particular, the psychoneuro- immunological significance of promises explicit or implicit in the employment relationship is identified as being crucial to our understanding of how stress affects health and capacities. Practical implications are explored.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.322 · 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