MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100218018 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.130815

Worker Productivity Outcome Measures: OMERACT Filter Evidence and Agenda for Future Research

2013· article· en· W2100218018 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Kenneth Tang, Annelies Boonen, Suzanne Verstappen, Reuben Escorpizo, Jolanda J. Luime, Diane Lacaille, Bruno Fautrel, Ailsa Bosworth, Mary Cifaldi, Monique A.M. Gignac, Cathy Hofstetter, Amye Leong, Pam Montie, Ingemar F. Petersson, Oana Purcaru, Claire Bombardier, Peter Tugwell, Dorcas E. Beaton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsArthritis Research Centre of CanadaInstitute for Work & HealthUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of British ColumbiaInstitute of Health Services and Policy Research
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoArthritis SocietyCanadian Arthritis NetworkPfizer
KeywordsPresenteeismProductivityMedicineInterpretabilityConceptualizationWork (physics)Applied psychologyPsychologyComputer scienceEngineeringEconomicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Worker Productivity working group is to identify worker productivity outcome measures that meet the requirements of the OMERACT filter. At the OMERACT 11 Workshop, we focused on the at-work limitations/productivity component of worker productivity (i.e., presenteeism) - an area with diverse conceptualization and instrumentation approaches. Various approaches to quantify at-work limitations/productivity (e.g., single-item global and multi-item measures) were examined, and available evidence pertaining to OMERACT truth, discrimination, and feasibility were presented to conference participants. Four candidate global measures of presenteeism were put forth for a plenary vote to determine whether current evidence meets the OMERACT filter requirements. Presenteeism globals from the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (72% support) and Rheumatoid Arthritis-specific Work Productivity Survey (71% support) were endorsed by conference participants; however, neither the presenteeism global item from the Health and Work Performance Questionnaire nor the Quantity and Quality method achieved the level of support required for endorsement at the present time. The plenary was also asked whether the central item from the Work Ability Index should also be considered as a candidate measure for potential endorsement in the future. Of participants at the plenary, 70% supported this presenteeism global measure. Progress was also made in other areas through discussions at individual breakout sessions. Topics examined include the merits of various multi-item measures of at-work limitations/productivity, methodological issues related to interpretability of outcome scores, and approaches to appraise and classify contextual factors of worker productivity. Feedback gathered from conference participants will inform the future research agenda of the working group.

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 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)0.307
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.394
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3070.394
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.012
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0130.020
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0250.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.200
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.280 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations48
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207