Economic evaluation of interventions for occupational health and safety : developing good practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. The broad conceptualization of work and health 2. What is a little more health and safety worth? 3. A critical review of the application of economic evaluation methodologies in occupational health and safety 4. Lessons from health technology assessment 5. Lessons from the literature on valuing reductions in physical risk 6. The institutional and regulatory settings for occupational health and safety: an international survey 6b Canada 6c United Kingdom 6d Denmark 6e Germany 6f Australia 7. Workplace-researcher relationship: early research strategy and avoiding the 'data dearth' 8. Study design 9. Kind of analysis and decision rule 10. Costs 11. Consequences 12. Adjusting for time preference and addressing uncertainty 13. Equity in economic evaluation 14. Suggestions for a reference case
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 | 0.239 | 0.487 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".