MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1934735224

Occupational noise control in Australia - Its policy and management

2004· article· en· W1934735224 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jingnan Guo, Pam Eia Gunn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationCommonwealthGovernment (linguistics)JurisdictionBusinessPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthMedicineLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Noise has long been recognized as one o f the priority occupational hazards in Australia.Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is probably the most prevalent occupational disease in Australian industries and it is the major cause o f deafness in Australia.All six Australian States, the two Territories and the Commonwealth Government have their own legislation to manage occupational noise.Whilst these are not all the same they are similar and nearly all States and Territories have now adopted the Australian National Occupational Noise Standard into their legislation.The government structures and agencies that administer occupational noise legislation are also different in the different States and Territories.In this paper occupational noise legislation in the Commonwealth jurisdiction and in all Australian States and Territories will be summarized.Brief comparisons with legislation in American and European countries will be made.The government structure and relevant legislation and policies for occupational noise management in Western Australia will be explained.The role o f WorkSafe Western Australia in enforcing the legislation and assisting workplaces to comply with it will be discussed. s o m m a ir eLe bruit est depuis longtemps reconnu comme tant l 'un des principaux dangers dans le milieu professionnel en Australie.La perte auditive due aux nuissances sonores est, probablement, la maladie professionnelle la plus rpandue dans les industries australiennes et est considre comme tant la cause principale de surdit en Australie.Les six tats composant l 'Australie, les deux territoires et le gouvernement du Commonwealth ont chacun leur propre lgislation pour contrler le bruit dans le milieu professionnel.Mme si ces lgislations ne sont pas toutes identiques, elles prsentent des similitudes et presque tous les tats et territoires ont jusqu' prsent adopt dans leurs lgislations les normes nationales australiennes concernant les nuisances sonores dans le milieu professionnel.Par ailleurs, chaque tat et territoire est dot de structures et d 'agences gouvernementales propres pour lutter contre le bruit au travail.Cet article rsumera les lgislations appliques en matire de bruits dans la juridiction du Commonwealth ainsi que dans tous les tats et territoires australiens.De brves comparaisons avec les lgislations amricaines et europennes seront faites.Des explications seront apportes concernant la structure gouvernementale, la lgislation et les politiques appropries mises en place pour la gestion du bruit dans le milieu professionnel en Australie Occidentale.Le rle que joue l 'organisme "WorkSafe Western Australia" dans le renforcement de la lgislation et dans l 'aide apporte sur les lieux de travail, pour faire respecter les lois, sera examin en dtail.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.375 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207