Exploring the experience of presenteeism among fathers returning to work following a perinatal death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perinatal death is a frequent event that affects one in five pregnancies in western countries. It disrupts parents’ different life spheres, including their work. Fathers, more specifically, usually return to work quickly after their loss. Given the significant psychological impacts of this traumatic experience, they are likely to engage in presenteeism, i.e. reporting to work while still mourning their loss and experiencing psychological distress. However, few studies have documented this phenomenon. To fill this gap, the present study seeks to understand the nature, underlying motivations and perceived repercussions of presenteeism in fathers returning to work following a perinatal death. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 41 fathers who experienced an early or late perinatal death. Thematic analysis indicates that many fathers returned to work while still experiencing acute symptoms of psychological distress and thus engaged in presenteeism. For most fathers, presenteeism was involuntary and associated with working conditions beyond their control (e.g. workload, lack of paid leave). However, some participants returned to work out of intrinsic interest. Fathers perceived that their act of presenteeism affected them personally, as well as their organization, and their family (i.e. spouse, other children).
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".