MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168138825 · doi:10.1037/a0021001

Early employer response to workplace injury: What injured workers perceive as fair and why these perceptions matter.

2010· article· en· W2168138825 on OpenAlexaffabout
C. Gail Hepburn, E. Kevin Kelloway, Renée‐Louise Franche

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational Health Psychology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupational safety and healthPsychologyStructural equation modelingOccupational injuryPerceptionMusculoskeletal injuryMental healthHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionSupervisorSuicide preventionPoison controlClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors examined whether early employer response to workplace injury affects injured workers' subsequent attitudes and mental health. At 1 month and 6 months postinjury, telephone surveys were conducted with 344 workers from Ontario, Canada, who had experienced a musculoskeletal lost-time workplace injury. One-month reports of initial supervisor reaction to the injury and the use of workplace-based return-to-work strategies (early contact with worker, ergonomic assessment, presence of designated coordinator, accommodation offer) were hypothesized to predict reports of fairness, affective commitment, and depressive symptoms measured at 6 months postinjury. Structural equation modeling supported a model wherein fairness perceptions fully mediated the relationship between early responses and injured workers' attitudes and mental health. Early contact and supervisor reactions were significant predictors of fairness perceptions. The implications for early employer response are discussed.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.468 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations43
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational Health PsychologySame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207