A Cross-Sectional Study of the Awareness and Implementation of the <i>National Standard of Canada for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace</i> in Canadian Employers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: (the Standard) was released in 2013. The objectives of this study were to 1) estimate the proportion of Canadian employers who were aware of the Standard, 2) examine the extent to which the Standard has been implemented, and 3) describe perceived barriers to implementing the Standard in Canadian organizations. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey in Canadian employers was conducted between February 2015 and January 2017. A random sample of Canadian employers was selected, and the individuals who were knowledgeable about the occupational health policies of the organizations were interviewed by telephone. The participants answered questions about the awareness, implementation, perceived effects, and barriers to implementation. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used to characterize the results. RESULTS: A total of 1010 companies participated in the study. Overall, 17.0% reported that they were aware of the Standard; 1.7% and 20.3% reported that their organizations had implemented the entirety or elements of the Standard, respectively; and 71.4% of participants believed that elements of the Standard would be implemented within the next year. The perceived effects associated with implementation of the Standard included increased job satisfaction and employee retention while the greatest barrier to implementing the Standard was the belief that psychological health and safety are irrelevant in the workplace. CONCLUSIONS: Many Canadian employers are still unaware of the Standard's existence; however, most Canadian employers are positively inclined toward the Standard in its potential to help employee productivity and job satisfaction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".