MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

‘Playing it smart’ with return to work: small workplace experience under Ontario’s policy of self-reliance and early return

2003· article· en· W2293121472 on OpenAlex
Joan M. Eakin, Ellen MacEachen, Judy Clarke

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy and Practice in Health and Safety · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompromiseWork (physics)Public relationsRehabilitationAccommodationBusinessOccupational safety and healthPsychologyPolitical scienceEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there is considerable research on the effectiveness of various approaches to promoting successful return to work after work-related injury or illness, little is known about the process in small workplaces. This paper reports on a study of the effects in small workplaces of a particular set of policies and practices in Ontario, Canada, called ‘early and safe return to work’, an approach that emphasises workplace self-reliance and return to work before complete recovery via ‘modified’ work accommodation. On the basis of qualitative analyses of documents and interviews with employers, injured workers and compensation/rehabilitation professionals, the study found that early and safe return to work can disrupt workplace norms and patterns of social interaction, and create hardship, albeit of different sorts, for both employers and workers. Employers experience conflict between their administrative role in the early and safe return-to-work process and the demands of running a small business, while injured workers find their participation governed more by the ‘discourse of abuse’ and the social dislocations of injury and modified work than by best rehabilitation practice. This situation can lead to an erosion of trust arising from what both employers and workers perceive to be the betrayal of moral understandings in the workplace, to the ‘hardening’ of co-operative intent, and to an increasing tendency to ‘play it smart’ with the system of early and safe return to work — responses that can subvert the objectives and intent of the policy, and compromise possibilities for mutually satisfactory solutions. The paper concludes with reflection on the implications of these findings for return-to-work policy and practice, particularly in relation to small workplaces.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.357 · 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