MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1620021945 · doi:10.3233/wor-2003-00322

The needs and experiences of injured workers: A participatory research study

2003· article· en· W1620021945 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueWork · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipParticipatory action researchRehabilitationCompensation (psychology)Work (physics)Citizen journalismProcess (computing)PsychologyWorkers' compensationMedical educationNursingMedicinePublic relationsBusinessPhysical therapySocial psychologyPolitical scienceSociologyEngineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports on the findings of a participatory research study in which 290 injured workers in Ontario, Canada responded to a survey that was developed and administered by a group of university researchers in partnership with injured worker peer researchers. The objectives of the study were to gain a broad view of the needs and experiences of injured workers and to develop strategies for change. Findings indicated that many injured workers experience undue financial, emotional and physical hardship during the compensation, treatment and rehabilitation process. These hardships are experienced due to perceived lack of respect, insufficient information concerning rights and the return-to-work process, and limited opportunities for input into the medical or rehabilitation process. Recommendations for increasing the power of workers and creating a more supportive climate are included.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it