How policy on employee involvement in work reintegration can yield its opposite: employee experiences in a Canadian setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Canada has a long tradition of involving employee representatives in developing work reintegration policies and expects this to positively affect employee involvement to improve work reintegration success. The purpose of this study was to examine employee involvement in reintegration in a Canadian province as experienced by employees. METHOD: Fourteen semi-structured interviews were held with employees in a healthcare organization. The interview topic list was based on a review of local reintegration policy documents and literature. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using ethnographic methodology. RESULTS: Employees do not feel in control of their reintegration trajectory. In the phase of reporting sickness absence, they wrestle with a lack of understanding on how to report in sick. In the phase of reintegration planning and coordination, they hesitate to get involved in the organization of reintegration. In the phase of reintegration plan execution, employees encounter unfulfilled expectations on interventions. CONCLUSION: Employee involvement in the organization of reintegration makes them responsible for the development of reintegration trajectories. However, they consider themselves often incapable of completing this in practice. Moreover, employees experience that their contribution can boomerang on them. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: • It is not that employees are not able to think along or decide on their reintegration trajectory but rather they are expected to do so at times when they cannot oversee their illness and/or recovery trajectory. • Settings out reintegration procedures that are inflexible in practice do not recognize that employee involvement in work reintegration trajectories can develop over time. • The disability management professional has a central role in organizing and supporting employee involvement in work reintegration, however, the employees do not experience this is indeed happening.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".