MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013003891 · doi:10.1080/15555240.2020.1726773

Applying gender-based analysis plus to Employee Assistance Programs: A Canadian perspective

2020· article· en· W3013003891 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mary Bartram, Jelena Atanackovic, Vivien Runnels, Ivy Lynn Bourgeault, Chantal Fournier, Nikolina Kovacina, Alain Contant, Louis MacDonald, Nancy L. Porteous, Ariane C. Renaud

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Workplace Behavioral Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmployee assistanceOutreachMental healthPsychologyPerspective (graphical)Equity (law)Gender equityDiversity (politics)Gender diversityApplied psychologyPublic relationsMedical educationSociologyPolitical scienceBusinessMedicineGender studiesPsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both workplace mental health and gender equity issues are in the spotlight in Canada as they are internationally. Accordingly, it is timely for Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) to systematically consider sex, gender, and intersecting identities. Four cross-cutting priorities emerged from a focused analysis of the literature: (1) targeted outreach to men and other priority populations, (2) enhanced gender and diversity training for EAP counselors, (3) digital EAP services to meet preferences beyond face-to-face counseling, and (4) performance and quality improvement of both the EAP process and outcomes. The implications of these are considered using a Canadian case example.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0300.013
Scholarly communication0.0150.003
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Workplace Behavioral HealthSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207