COVID-19 workplace adaptation and recovery in the resort municipality of Whistler, BC, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic changed how many of us work, where we work and what we need and expect from the workplace. In this paper, the researchers sought to describe how employers and employees experienced their changing workplace environments in the early days of the pandemic, with a focus on adaptation and recovery in Whistler in British Columbia, Canada. In addition, the authors aimed to develop a new model to inform other organizations undergoing the consequences of major catastrophes. Design/methodology/approach Applying a qualitative approach, the authors gathered data in a total of seven focus groups. Employer focus groups were held in June 2020, and employee focus groups were held in November 2020. A thematic analysis was completed by three researchers. Findings After completing an analysis of the employer focus group transcripts, the authors identified the themes of staffing and coordination, adaptability and connection, uncertainty, communication and community and strategies. The employees' concerns and experiences related to the themes of challenges, changes and community, communication, involvement in decisions, future employment and support and connection. Originality/value This study captured descriptions of workplace adaptation and recovery for employers and employees during the pandemic, generalizability is limited by the number of participants. These accounts depicted a period of significant change in working conditions, communications, and employment practices. This paper offers a new conceptual model, C4AR, exploring the role of communicate, coordinate, connect and community in supporting workplace adaptation and recovery.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".