MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940847930 · doi:10.1177/0030222819846419

A Study to Understand the Impact of Bereavement Grief on the Workplace

2019· article· en· W2940847930 on OpenAlexaffabout
Donna M. Wilson, Sehrish Punjani, Qingkang Song, Gail Low

Bibliographic record

VenueOMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGriefAccommodationWork (physics)PsychologyPopulationSample (material)Social psychologySociologyDemographyEngineeringPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although most employees and business owners or operators will likely experience the death of one or more loved ones over their work lives, attention has not focused on how bereavement grief impacts the workplace. A study was conducted for foundational information. Data on the annual incidence of bereavement leaves and related matters were collected from a relatively representative sample of small, medium, and large Canadian organizations. Two of every three organizations had 1+ employees take a bereavement leave last year, with 3.2% of all employees taking a bereavement leave consisting of 2.5 days on average and often with additional travel and accommodation days. The findings suggest that more should be done by organizations to prepare for bereavement leaves and assisted work returns. This preparation is essential for the tsunami of bereavement grief in the years ahead as deaths increase rapidly in number with population aging.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations26
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOMEGA - Journal of Death and DyingSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207