Health is Wealth: The Correlation of Wellness Programs & Productivity in Canada and the U.S.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Does health impact the productivity of workers? Are there differences between the U.S. and Canada? Firms both in Canada and the U.S. deal with issues of presenteeism and absenteeism. Presenteeism is when an employee shows up to work but they are distracted by their own or a family member’s health issue. One response to reduce presenteeism and absenteeism are workplace wellness programs. Workplace wellness programs are facilitated programs by a firm to promote the health and wellbeing of their employees, which benefits the employer and the employees. There are additional incentives for U.S. employers to implement workplace wellness programs as employers are the foundation of private insurance in the U.S. while Canada operates on a one payer healthcare system. However, Canadian employers are responsible for pharmaceutical, physical therapy, and mental health insurance costs (Jacobs, 2017). Most studies examine their country and found that workplace wellness programs provide 300-400% return on investment in Canada and the U.S., making wellness programs effective and smart investments for firms to make. This study will do data analysis that will compare the effectiveness of workplace wellness programs on productivity in Canada and the U.S.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".