MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6888742788 · doi:10.21949/1527311

Employee Assistance Program for Transit Systems

2015· report· en· W6888742788 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRosa P: A digital library for transportation research (United States Department of Transportation) · 2015
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransit (satellite)GlossarySample (material)Transit systemPublic transport

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report is a detailed procedural manual intended to help primarily small and madium sized transit systems design, implement, and evaluate Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs). Based on the experience of Connecticut Transit and other systems, the manual is intended to help local transit managers and decision makers develop new programs or evaluate and improve existing EAPs. Specific topics addressed by the manual include alternative EAP models, reasons to justify EAPs on local traansit systems, options in designing EAPs, implementation steps, program evaluation, case studies, and future issues and trends. The appendix includes a glossary of relevant terms, sample EAP documents, an annotated bibliography, and an inventory of existing programs and contact persons at 180 United States and Canadian transit systems.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.270 · 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