Protecting Construction Worker Health and Safety in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Do Ontario unionized construction firms have lower workers' compensation claims rates compared with nonunion firms? METHODS: Building trade and construction trade association lists of union contractors were linked to Workplace Safety and Insurance Board claims data for 2006 to 2012. Data were pooled for 2006 to 2012, and negative binomial regressions conducted with adjustment to estimate a union safety effect. RESULTS: The sample included 5797 unionized and 38,626 nonunion construction firms. Total claims rates were 13% higher (1.13, 1.09 to 1.18) in unionized firms because of higher allowed no-lost-time claim rates (1.28, 1.23 to 1.34), whereas the lost-time claims rate was 14% lower (0.86, 0.82 to 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Unionized construction firms compared with nonunion firms have higher no-lost-time and lower lost-time claims rates. Unionized firms may encourage occupational injury reporting and reduce risks through training and hazard identification and control strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".