How does returning to work after retirement influence older workers’ health? A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The return to the labour market after retirement is an increasing phenomenon in the North American population. It is the subject of a growing number of studies, whose conclusions seem inconsistent. As returning to working life after retirement is not neutral for individuals, the aim of this article is to present the protocol of a scoping review about its effects on older workers’ health. Methods and analysis The methodology of Arksey and O’Malley, including the recommendations of Levac et al and Daudt et al will be used. The process is composed of seven steps, from the identification of the research question, to the planning of knowledge transfer activities. Documents dealing with retirees returning to work in connection with health will be explored and analysed using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Ethics and dissemination Approval has been obtained for the consultation step of the protocol (ethics board of the Centre intégré universitaire en santé et service s sociaux de la Capitale Nationale, project #2019-1753). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols checklist will be used to support transparency and guide translation of findings. Findings will be shared with various stakeholders involved in older workers’ health. Findings will also be disseminated in workshops, peer-reviewed journals and conferences.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
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 | 0.116 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.011 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".