The demographic and contextual correlates of work‐related repetitive strain injuries among canadian men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The study sought to identify gender differences in work-related repetitive strain injuries (RSI), as well as examine the degree to which non-work factors such as family roles interact with gender to modify RSI risk. Another aim is to examine whether there are potential provincial differences in work-related RSI risk. METHODS: The 2003/2005 Canadian Community Health Survey included over 89,000 respondents who reported working in the past 12 months. Separate multi-level models for men and women were used to identify the correlates of work-related RSIs. RESULTS: Women reported sustaining more work-related RSIs than men. Also, having one or more children in the household was associated with lower work-related RSI risk for females. Both men and women in British Columbia reported higher work-related RSI rates than in Ontario. CONCLUSIONS: Gender contributes to RSI risk in multiple and diverse ways based on labor market segregation, non-work exposures, and possibly biological vulnerability, which suggests more tailored interventions. Also, the provincial differences indicate that monitoring and surveillance of work injury across jurisdictions can assist in province-wide prevention and occupational health and safety evaluation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".