“To work, or not to work, that is the question” – Recent trends and avenues for research on presenteeism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This position paper brings together recent and emerging developments in the field of presenteeism. A critical synthesis of the evidence is needed due to persisting conceptual and methodological challenges as well as the increased volume of research in the field. This paper integrates emerging evidence and critical thinking into three areas: (1) concept, (2) measurement and methodological issues, and (3) the context of presenteeism. First, due to the variety of existing definitions, competing understandings, as well as the notion of positive presenteeism, it is important to reconsider the notion of presenteeism. Second, it is important to reflect on the measurement of the act of presenteeism and the productivity loss associated with that. Third, following the call to investigate presenteeism in specific contexts, it is important to explain the social, occupational, cross-cultural aspects, as well as the contemporary workplace changes. Based on this critical synthesis, we conclude by identifying recommendations for future research on presenteeism.
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 | 0.031 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".