MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162205933 · doi:10.3233/wor-2010-0992

Advancing knowledge in work-related rehabilitation – Review of research published in the journal of WORK

2010· review· en· W2162205933 on OpenAlexaffabout
Birgit Prodinger, Lílian Magalhães

Bibliographic record

VenueWork · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)RehabilitationTheme (computing)Qualitative researchDiversity (politics)PsychologySociologySocial scienceComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Many studies published in the journal WORK in the recent decades have discussed work and employment trends. However, the dimensions of these contributions over time have not been reviewed. The main objective of this study was to investigate the knowledge development in regard to work-related rehabilitation in WORK over the last two decades. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using the following five stages: (i) identifying research question, (ii) identifying relevant studies, (iii) study selection, (iv) charting, summarizing, and collating the data, and (v) reporting the results. Studies were selected from the WORK ARTicle Database. RESULTS: Seventy-five relevant studies were identified. The findings reflect that WORK has published papers from across the world, with most of the studies from the United States, Sweden, Canada, and Hong Kong. The complexity and multi-factorial nature of work-related rehabilitation was reflected in the application of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method research approaches, as well as case studies. Study participants were characterized by work, and non-work related injuries, systematic diseases/chronic illness, fulfilled certain socio-demographic characteristic, and represented various stakeholders. Fewer studies drew on secondary resources. In the findings one re-occurring theme has been noted: 'maintaining/obtaining/returning to secure and stable employment/work'. CONCLUSIONS: Four key-reflections evolved from this scoping review that provide potential avenues for future research. These key-reflections include (i) the national, transnational and international dimension of the reviewed studies, (ii) the various societal levels informing work-related rehabilitation practices, (iii) the diversity of methodologies applied in current research, and (iv) the variability of terminology used within the reviewed studies. The journal WORK has published a variety of research over the last two decades and contributed significantly to our current understanding of work-related rehabilitation. However, further research in these reflective areas would expand the current knowledge base.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.386 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorkSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207