Return-to-Work coordinators’ perceptions of their roles relative to workers: A discourse analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose This paper describes how Canadian Return to Work coordinators’ (RTWC) framed their job roles relative to workers in ways that went beyond the usual professional norms of helping worker recovery.Methods In-depth interviews were conducted with 47 RTWCs across Canada in 2018–2019. We used critical discourse analysis to analyze the way coordinators viewed workers in the complex, multi-stakeholder system of RTW.Results We identified four ways that RTWCs positioned themselves relative to workers: as trustworthy, experts, detectives and motivators. These roles reflected RTWCs position within the system; however, their discourse also contributed to the construction of a moral hierarchy that valued worker motivation and framed some workers as attempting to exploit the RTW system.Conclusions RTWC’s positions of power in the coordination process warrant further investigation of how they exercise judgement and discretion, particularly when the process depends on their ability to weigh evidence and manage cases in what might be seen as an objective and fair manner.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".