Rapid Learning in Frontline Grocery Workers During the <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Prolonged stress and the need for rapid uptake of information can have detrimental effects on memory and cognition, whereas meaningfulness of study material and motivation to learn can have positive effects. How do these opposing conditions impact workplace learning in essential frontline workers during a global pandemic? We analyzed learning data collected longitudinally since before the pandemic in over 85,000 essential frontline grocery workers and nonessential telecommunications workers via a learning management system that incorporates a spaced retrieval schedule, where items are retrieved following retention intervals of varying length. Findings indicate more rapid knowledge uptake in grocery workers (a) during than before the pandemic, (b) for COVID‐19‐related content than non‐COVID content, and (c) in the United States than in Canada. Longer‐term maintenance of training material was similar across groups. Evidence of enhanced workplace learning and retention supports efforts to integrate empirically based strategies from the behavioral sciences into learning‐based technologies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".