Employer approaches to recognizing and managing intermittent work capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study explored how intermittent work capacity (IWC) presents in workplaces in order to advance conceptual understanding of this phenomenon and establish a set of initial principles to assist in its management. Design/methodology/approach The study followed a grounded theory approach in a multi-stage data collection process. In total, 25 employers representing diverse employment sectors were recruited with a goal of exploring their experiences with IWC. The first phase of the study comprised individual interviews with all employers. A subset of these employers later participated in two focus groups organized by company size. Finally, in-depth case studies were conducted with two information rich organizations to understand their approaches to managing IWC. Analysis methods consistent with grounded theory were used. Findings Although employers have a variety of positive motivations for supporting employees with IWC, they are challenged by the uncertainty arising from the unpredictable work patterns associated with IWC. Five distinct expressions of uncertainty were identified. Negotiation of this uncertainty involves attention to a range of factors, including intrapersonal factors, workplace relations and morale, specific job demands, communication processes, and structural and organizational factors. Research limitations/implications The findings of this study advance understanding of the expression of IWC, and factors that influence its impact. This paper presents a series of workplace strategies that both enable the well-being and capabilities of employees who experience IWC, and ensure productive and diverse workplaces. Originality/value The findings of this study advance understanding of the expression of IWC, and factors that influence its impact. This paper presents a series of workplace strategies that both enable the well-being and capabilities of employees who experience IWC, and ensure productive and diverse workplaces.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".