Health and performance: science or advocacy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the literature assessing the return-on-investment (ROI) of healthy workplace programs. Design/methodology/approach – Used a narrative review to summarize and evaluate findings. Findings – Although substantial ROI data now exist, methodological and logical weaknesses limit the conclusions that can be drawn. Practical implications – A strategy for monetizing the benefits of healthy workplaces that draws on both human resource accounting and strategic human resource management is described. Social implications – The promotion of healthy workplaces is an important goal in its own right. To the extent that ROI estimates are important in advancing this goal, these estimates should be based on clear logic and strong methodology. Originality/value – The paper suggests the need for stronger research designs but also note the difficulties in monetizing outcomes of the healthy workplace.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.061 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".