Investigating associations between physical activity and presenteeism: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Considering that physical activity plays a key role in the health of workers, a growing number of researchers are studying its relationship with various workplace outcomes, such as presenteeism. Numerous scientists recognise the relevance of further studying this relationship in order to improve our understanding of it. However, studies about the association between physical activity and presenteeism show some discrepancy in the results obtained. Disparity in the way of measuring presenteeism makes it even more challenging to compare results. In addition, it remains difficult to determine the optimal frequency, intensity, duration and type of physical activity to increase the productivity benefits of physical activity. In light of these issues, clarification through a scoping review of the literature on the subject is warranted. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: A search strategy will be conducted in six scientific databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ABI Inform Global, Web of Science and Business Source Premier. A screening process by two independent reviewers will lead to study selection. Quantitative and qualitative studies written in English about the relation between physical activity and presenteeism will be considered for inclusion. Data on the definition and measurement of presenteeism as well as the measurement of physical activity will be extracted. Additional data will be extracted to provide a descriptive overview of studies that have examined the relationship between presenteeism and physical activity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this study will be based only on published studies, ethics approval is not required. Through the manner in which the included studies will be presented (categorised by their approach to presenteeism), this scoping review has the potential to improve our understanding of some of the inconsistencies observed in the literature. This review can also identify gaps in the existing evidence base and lead to new avenues of research.
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 | 0.144 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.017 |
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".