Organizational Characteristics Related to the Adoption of Employee Assistance and Drug Testing Programs in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines characteristics of work sites related to the establishment of Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) and drug testing programs. A sample of 633 human resources managers at work sites with 100 or more employees across Canada completed a questionnaire on their work site characteristics and the types of programs available (response rate = 77.8%). Work sites with EAPs had significantly (p < .01) fewer visible minorities, were more likely to be unionized (p < .0001), and had less hierarchical management styles (p < .00001) than work sites without EAPs. For drug testing programs, significant differences were found across provinces (p < .00001) for work sites that delivered goods to the United States (p < .01), and for those in the safety-sensitive work sectors (p < .00001). Results suggest that the presence of an EAP is an indication of an employee benefit and is more likely to exist in work sites with nonhierarchical management styles, and that drug testing programs are linked to geopolitical issues and safety concerns.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".