MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401484878 · doi:10.1002/mhw.34149

In Case You Haven't Heard…

2024· article· en· W4401484878 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMental Health Weekly · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthQuarter (Canadian coin)CorporationAgency (philosophy)NeglectHavenSafe havenHealth carePsychologyMental health careGerontologyBusinessMedicinePsychiatrySociologyGeographyEconomic growthFinanceEconomicsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mental health‐related employee leaves continue to skyrocket among U.S. workers, according to new data released by ComPsych Corporation, the world's largest provider of mental health and absence management services, online news agency businesswire reported on Aug. 1. A sample analysis of ComPsych's absence book of business, which covers more than six million people, found that in the first quarter of 2024, more than one in 10 (11%) of all leaves of absence were due to mental health. This represents a 22% increase in mental health leaves versus those taken in the first quarter of 2023. This trend is being driven by female workers, who accounted for 69% of all mental health leaves of absence in 2023, and 71% of all mental health leaves in the first quarter of 2024. “Working women — especially moms and other caregivers — often neglect their self‐care until they hit the point of being so burnt out, they need to take a leave of absence,” said Dr. Jennifer Birdsall, clinical director of ComPsych. “The more [that] organizations can support resiliency‐building, teach self‐care and [ways of] prioritizing work‐life balance before things escalate into significant symptoms with functional impacts, the better. This is where the continuum of care, which includes prevention, comes into play.”

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.406 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther · Commentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMental Health WeeklySame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207