MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033808099 · doi:10.1080/00981389.2020.1769247

The potential impact of bereavement grief on workers, work, careers, and the workplace

2020· article· en· W3033808099 on OpenAlexaff
Donna M. Wilson, Andrea Rodríguez‐Prat, Gail Low

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Work in Health Care · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGriefDisadvantagedWork (physics)Social workPsychologyAccommodationDisenfranchised griefQualitative researchNursingPsychotherapistMedicineSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bereavement grief is typically very painful and often highly consequential. People who are working could be significantly impacted by the death of someone they care about. A qualitative study sought an understanding of the lived experience of bereavement on the mourner's ability to work and their work-related experiences following the death of a loved one. Three themes emerged: (a) grief is universal but individually impactful, (b) accommodation is needed to assist the return to work and to regain work abilities, and (c) there are many impediments to working again. These themes highlight the potential for bereavement grief to substantially effect mourners and thus their work, careers, and the workplace. Older workers could be particularly disadvantaged because of workplace ageism. Societal and other changes appear to be needed for the health and wellbeing of mourning workers, and to address related work and bereavement issues. Bereavement grief is highly relevant to the social work profession, given its involvement in providing information, developing supportive services, and making referrals.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Work in Health CareSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207