Mental Health and Well-being in the Workplace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on employees with concealable health conditions – both physical and mental – has slowly increased over the years both in industrial-organizational psychology and management disciplines (Bolo et al., 2013; de Graaf et al., 2008; Follmer & Jones, 2018; Lyons et al., 2017; Santuzzi & Waltz, 2016). While this research is on the rise, the experiences of employees with concealable health conditions remain poorly understood. We extend the call for organizational scholarship to examine the role of workplace processes in employees’ mental illnesses and employee well-being (Follmer & Jones, 2018) by bringing together emerging scholarship asking unique questions in this space. This is of grave importance, considering the increase in efforts by organizations to foster inclusion of employees with concealable identities. Specifically, the primary objective of our symposium is to present novel approaches to understanding employees with concealable mental health and psychological conditions. Each research team aims to leverage their results to provide insight into how to support these employees as they navigate work environments. Their findings have implications for encouraging organizations to think more comprehensively about the different ways to support mental health and employee well-being in the workplace. Identity Management Experiences of Men and Racial Minorities with Mental Health Conditions Author: Shona G. Smith; U. of Houston Author: GABRIELA GUZMAN; U. of Texas At Arlington Author: David F. Arena; U. of Texas At Arlington Author: Hayden DuBois; U. of Texas At Arlington Author: Wendy J. Casper; U. of Texas At Arlington Exploring the Costs of Virtual Work Arrangement for Individuals Experiencing Depression Author: Ekonkar Kaur; U. of Washington, Seattle Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and Personnel Selection Author: Wenxi Pu; U. of Manitoba Author: Philip L. Roth; Clemson U. Author: Jason Thatcher; U. of Colorado Boulder Examining the Impact on Belonging and Avoidance in the Workplace Author: Erica M. Johnson; U. of Alabama, Birmingham The Emotion Work of Equity Leaders in a (Racially) Conflicted Organization Author: Estelle Archibold; Pennsylvania State U.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".