Urine Collection Jars versus Video Games: Perceptions of Three Stakeholder Groups toward Drug and Impairment Testing Programs
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
The use of drug testing in the workplace is a controversial practice. Scholars, practitioners, unions, and organizations have therefore begun to explore whether there are alternative approaches to reduce counterproductive behaviors at work. We investigated the perceptions of labor relations experts, drivers of transportation vehicles, and users of public transportation services toward drug and impairment testing programs in the workplace. Impairment testing was viewed as more favorable in terms of combating and controlling counterproductive behaviors at work than drug testing. Perceptions of fairness, effectiveness in detecting impaired performance, and the potential to enhance a safer working environment were higher in the impairment testing condition as compared to the drug testing condition. Perceived invasiveness was lower in the impairment testing condition relative to the drug testing condition. Labor relations experts showed the least enthusiasm for both drug testing and impairment testing programs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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