MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2414876350 · doi:10.1177/216507990605400605

The Meaning of Occupational Health among Human Resources Professionals— <i>A Qualitative Study</i>

2006· article· en· W2414876350 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAAOHN Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsGeoAdvice Engineering (Canada)Eagle Ridge HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupational health nursingOccupational safety and healthPsychosocialRealmQualitative researchWork (physics)NursingPublic relationsBusinessPsychologyMedicineHealth educationSociologyPublic healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study findings provide clear rationale for employing occupational health nurses as specialists in understanding occupational health, particularly in the areas of information seeking (e.g., identifying health resources and best practices) and illness or disability management (e.g., managing complex cases and addressing psychosocial factors). Occupational health nurses can assist human resources professionals to direct their energies to administrative and cultural features within their organizations that impact the health of employees and that clearly fall within their realm of expertise (e.g., working to create a workplace climate of genuine concern for employees). Occupational health nurses can provide aggregate information on the health of the work force to strategically encourage, direct, and harness employer investments in workplace health. Finding ways to translate and communicate workplace health information so it is accessible and useable by employers to direct decision making is a key role for occupational health nurses.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.427 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAAOHN JournalSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207