Productivity in older versus younger workers: A systematic literature review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Worldwide ageing and thus, workforce ageing, is a concern for both developed and developing nations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current research was to determine, through a systematic literature review, the effects of age in three dimensions that are often used to define or assess productivity at work. METHODS: PICO framework was used to generate search strategies, inclusion criteria and terms. Scopus and PubMed databases were used. Peer-reviewed journal papers written in English and published (or in press) between January 2014 and December 2018 were included. RESULTS: After filtering through inclusion criteria, 74 papers were included in the review. Considering productivity, 41%of the findings showed no differences between younger and older workers, 31%report better productivity of younger workers and 28%reported that older workers had better productivity than younger workers. Performance was better in older workers (58%), presenteeism generally showed no significant differences between age groups (61%). Absenteeism was the only outcome where younger workers outperformed older workers (43%). CONCLUSION: Overall, there was no difference in productivity between older and younger workers. Older workers performed better than younger workers, but had more absenteeism, while presenteeism showed no differences. As ageing has come to workplaces, holistic approaches addressing total health are suggested to overcome the worldwide workforce ageing phenomenon.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it