Examining the antecedents and conceptualisations of presenteeism and absenteeism in the workplace and its impact on teleworkers: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Presenteeism and absenteeism impact an individual’s ability to work efficiently. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated their effect on teleworkers. The current literature regarding presenteeism and absenteeism is broad, with various definitions of both phenomena making it difficult for researchers to measure accurately. This scoping review protocol aims to examine existing definitions of presenteeism and absenteeism in the workplace and focus on the antecedents for why they occur among teleworkers. The scoping review protocol has been pre-registered on Open Science Framework (osf.io/ur5a6). Online databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ABI Inform Global, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Business Source Premier will be searched to identify studies investigating presenteeism and absenteeism. Inclusion criteria will include individuals 18 or older who are part of the working population and currently employed in a teleworking environment for at least 50% of the working hours. The findings of this review will be of interest to companies and health professionals who seek to develop more practical policies and guidelines to assist those who engage in presenteeism and absenteeism.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".