MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085984322 · doi:10.1007/s10926-013-9459-4

Exploring the Diversity of Conceptualizations of Work (Dis)ability: A Scoping Review of Published Definitions

2013· review· en· W2085984322 on OpenAlexafffund
Valérie Lederer, Patrick Loisel, Michèle Rivard, François Champagne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational Rehabilitation · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsConceptualizationCategorizationContext (archaeology)Set (abstract data type)Diversity (politics)Management scienceWork (physics)Inclusion (mineral)Conceptual frameworkData scienceComputer scienceEpistemologySociologySocial scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0250.025
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.349
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.077 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations123
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational RehabilitationSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207