Availability of caregiver-friendly workplace policies (CFWPs): an international scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little research has been done to summarise: what is currently available to caregiver-employees (CEs), what types of employers are offering caregiver-friendly workplace policies (CFWPs), and the characteristics of employers offering CFWPs. The purpose of this scoping review was to explore the availability of CFWPs within workplaces on an international scale while being observant of how gender is implicated in care-giving. This paper followed the Arksey & O'Malley (2005) methodology for conducting scoping reviews. The authors applied an iterative method of determining study search strings, study inclusion and data extraction, and qualitative thematic analysis of the search results. Searches were performed in both the academic and grey literature, published between 1994 and 2014. A total of 701 articles were found. Seventy (n = 70) articles met all inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Four main qualitative themes were identified: (i) Diversity and Inclusiveness, (ii) Motivation, (iii) Accessibility, and (iv) Workplace Culture. Policy recommendations are discussed. This scoping review narrows the gap in the literature with respect to determining: (i) the workplaces which offer CFWPs, (ii) the sectors of the labour force shown to be supportive and (iii) the most frequently offered CFWPs.
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 | 0.046 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".