An exploration of social support as a factor in the return-to-work process
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite evidence that inter-personal relationships are important in human resource management, little is understood about the nature of workplace social support in a disability context, or what features of support are important to the success of return-to-work programs. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore workplace disability support from worker and supervisory perspectives and to identify salient features for work re-entry. A total of 8 supervisors and 18 previously injured workers from a range of work units in a Canadian municipality were interviewed, and their views concerning supportive and unsupportive behaviours in work-re-entry situations were recorded and analyzed. A full range of social support dimensions were reported to be relevant, and were seen as arising from a variety of sources (e.g. supervisor, co-workers, disability manager, work unit, and outside of work). Respondents identified trust, communication and knowledge of disability as key precursors to a successful return-to-work process. Future research should explore the specific contributions of support to work rehabilitation outcomes as well as interventions to enhance available supports.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it