MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W632133399

Telework: Canada's Answer to Lower Healthcare Costs

2005· article· en· W632133399 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Linda Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueTDM Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork scheduleHarmScheduleAbsenteeismWork (physics)Health careJob satisfactionBusinessDemographic economicsPsychologyEconomic growthEngineeringEconomicsManagementSocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 32 million Canadian citizens are all entitled to universal public health care on demand. 10% of Canada' GDP is spent on healthcare, so Health Canada is quite interested in what is making Canadians sick. This article examines data collected on the outcomes of virtual work on the enterprise and its effects on the end users. Based on the data collected from thousands of teleworkers. there is clear evidence that virtual work practices do more good than harm. Some of the findings show: commute avoidances show that weekly commute time was cut from 36 hours monthly before telework to 12 hours monthly with telework; distance not traveled reduced by 37%; environmental benefits: each teleworker driver saves 3,001 pounds of carbon dioxide emission; effects on personal - family (positive): family schedule - 92% , childcare and family needs - 85%, family adapted to telework - 100%, reduction in stress level - 40%. Based on a number of key indicator's, including job satisfaction, work-life balance, stress levels and absenteeism, staff who telework are having a better overall job experience than their in office counterparts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.378 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTDM ReviewSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207