MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

103 Staying at work while ageing: barriers and facilitators for workers over 55 years of age

2018· article· en· W2802824860 on OpenAlexaffabout
M-J Durand, MF Coutu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgeingWork (physics)GerontologyComputer scienceMedicineEngineeringMechanical engineeringInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction While ageing workers (AWs) (≥55 years) constitute a growing portion of the labour force, they tend to be absent for health reasons more often than other workers. However, implementing mechanisms that facilitate their staying at work implies first understanding the contributing factors and dynamics. Methods A multimethod approach was used, combining a literature review and a series of group discussions with stakeholders in work disability. First, a rapid review of mixed studies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed) was carried out between 2006 and 2016 using main databases (e.g.: CINAHL, PsycInfo, Sociological Index). We identified 30 articles on AWs and various causes of disability, then analysed the article content using a predefined extraction grid. Four focus groups representing various stakeholders (n=35) concerned by the ageing of workers in Quebec, Canada, were formed (insurers, employers, unions, health professionals). The discussions were transcribed and content analysis was performed. Results Combined results revealed that the relationship between ageing and the likelihood of staying at work is largely influenced by the interactions between workers’ personal systems and the organisation’s (workplace) system. The gap between workers’ representations, capacities and resources, on the one hand, and employers’ expectations and requirements and the conditions they provide, on the other, significantly impacts the likelihood of AWs staying at work. Discussion The likelihood of AWs staying at work appears closely linked to the workplace’s dynamic capacity to take into account their specific health conditions and needs. This presupposes, however, recognition of AWs’ added value, in a market characterised by ever-growing concern with maximising performance. The actions associated with the different systems (e.g. compensation and healthcare systems) also need to be harmonised to maximise the stay-at-work potential of this segment of the labour force.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOccupational Health and Safety ManagementFrench-language works237,207