Telework in a pandemic context: protocol of a participatory study on the effects of teleworking conditions on the well-being and social participation of workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although several authors have been interested in the well-being and social participation of teleworkers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, it appears that most of the recommendations issued are based on literature reviews or expert opinions; yet few authors have documented the perspectives of the workers. The aim of this study is to explore workers' perspectives of teleworking in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic regarding the effects on their well-being and social participation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a participatory study protocol involving the collaboration of a community organisation defending workers' rights, the first step will be to conduct focus groups to qualitatively describe workers' perspectives of their teleworking conditions. Then, an online questionnaire will be administered to a large pool or workers to quantitatively explore the influence of individual, organisational and environmental variables on the well-being and social participation of workers. The thematic and statistical analyses of the data collected will indicate successful practices to be adopted by workers and organisations. These successful practices will be validated by workers through a Technique for Research of Information by Animation of a Group of Experts group and will serve as concrete tools to better support workers' participation in teleworking. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The approval of the research ethics board of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale Nationale has been obtained. Findings will be shared with various stakeholders including workers, employers, insurers and unions. Findings will be disseminated in webinars, peer-reviewed journals and lectures.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".