Experiences of Women Faculty Using Meditative Practices Through Workplace Health Promotion in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workplace stress is pervasive and changes to the postsecondary teaching and learning environment have contributed to stress among women faculty and adversely impacted their personal well-being. The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand how the constructs in the health belief model (HBM) play a role in the use of worksite wellness initiatives to manage stress and promote wellness among women postsecondary faculty in Ontario. The research questions were designed based on the HBM to examine the participants’ perceptions of severity and susceptibility to workplace stress, perceived benefits and barriers to participation, motivation to participate, and self-efficacy. Women faculty at Ontario colleges and universities who met the sampling criteria of teaching for two or more years and participating in a meditative practice through their workplace wellness program in the last three years were invited to participate in the study. A total of eight faculty participated in semistructured interviews through Zoom. The resulting data were analyzed using a thematic method. Participants reported physical, mental, and interpersonal impacts of workplace stress to varying degrees. Reported benefits of participating included opportunities to take a break, reset, and feel reenergized during the day. Barriers included feeling too busy, lack of consistency in program delivery, and lack of a dedicated space to participate in these offerings within the institution. Implications for positive social change include providing valuable insights to reform existing workplace wellness programs, encourage participation, and develop policies to achieve positive well-being outcomes across the provincial postsecondary system.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".