MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121398726

Effective Strategies to Reduce Employee Absenteeism Amongst Canadian Female Employees

2020· article· en· W3121398726 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sue Haywood

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarWorks (Walden University) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbsenteeismLabour economicsBusinessDemographic economicsEconomicsManagement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High absenteeism in female employees costs Canadian hospitals millions of dollars annually. Leaders of Canadian hospitals who lack strategies to reduce absenteeism in female employees witness significant financial losses in their organizations. Grounded in Herzberg's two-factor theory, the purpose of this multiple case study was to explore strategies Canadian hospital leaders used to reduce absenteeism in female employees. Data were collected from semistructured interviews, annual reports, and publicly available datasets relating to hospital retention strategies and were analyzed using a thematic analysis. Four themes on strategies to reduce absenteeism emerged: creating a supportive stance towards absenteeism, investing in mental health and wellness resources, adopting a whole-person approach, and providing aid for childcare. A key recommendation is for leaders to adopt a supportive stance toward absenteeism, focusing on well-being over absence. The implication for positive social change from decreased costs relating to high female employee absenteeism could result in Canadian hospitals having increased resources to improve their services to local communities.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarWorks (Walden University)Same topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207