Examining the associations between physical work demands and work injury rates between men and women in Ontario, 1990–2000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To describe the decline in injury rates between 1990 and 2000 within occupations stratified across three levels of physical demands and gender, adjusting for industry, in Canada's largest province. METHODS: Records of injury compensation claims were obtained from the Ontario Workplace Safety & Insurance Board. The population likely to be insured by the Ontario Workplace Safety & Insurance Board was estimated from Statistics Canada's Labour Force Survey. Injury rates were calculated by three broad levels of physical demands, separately for men and women. RESULTS: Injury rates decreased across each grouping of lower physical demands at work for both men and women, with the largest absolute differences in manual occupational groups (high physical demands). Occupations classified as manual (high physical demands) and mixed (moderate physical demands) showed larger differences in injury rates between genders than did non-manual (low physical demands), although the directions of these differences were not always consistent across different natures of injury classification. CONCLUSIONS: The absolute reduction in injury rates in Ontario between 1990 and 2000 was dominated by the reduction in injury rates for men and women in manual and mixed occupations. However, not all types of injury have declined to the same extent. A large proportion of differences in injury rates between men and women can be attributed to the differential labour force participation across occupations and industries, as well as the differential tasks within occupational groups.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".