Health, Job Loss, and Programs for Older Workers in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older workers represent a growing proportion of the labour force that is expected to reach 40% by the year 2010. Involuntary job loss within this group has also risen markedly over the past two decades. A review of existing research was conducted pertaining to the relationship between health and employment for this population, and programs to address job loss in latter career stages. Program managers and government personnel associated with these programs in British Columbia were also interviewed. While increased recognition of the need for older worker programs in Canada is positive, the top-down nature of their development, implementation and evaluation has meant that they are largely motivated by fiscal agendas. Although unemployment has a deleterious effect upon both the physiological and psychological health of older adults, this association is rarely considered in program planning or evaluation. Several courses of action to improve older worker programs in Canada are proposed. These include: paying greater heed to employment-related health issues; fostering multi-sectoral collaboration between government, business, communities and older workers and; devising evaluation systems that move beyond short-term quantitative methods toward more quaitative, long-term outcome measures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".