A randomised controlled study to evaluate the effectiveness of targeted occupational health and safety consultation or inspection in Ontario manufacturing workplaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: From 2004 to 2008, the prevention system in Ontario, Canada ran the High Risk Firm Initiative, an injury-experience based targeted consultation or inspection programme. Our objective was to establish whether prevention system targeting of firms was effective in improving injury outcomes. METHODS: Randomised controlled parallel groups. Population included all manufacturing firms registered with the Ontario Workplace Safety & Insurance Board in 2005. Firms ranked between the 2nd and 10th percentile on a composite measure of occupational health and safety performance were randomised to three study arms in 2006: targeted for Health & Safety Association (HSA) consultation, targeted for Ministry of Labour (MOL) inspection, or services as usual. Data included firm characteristics (sector, size, years in business, region, branches), work injury claims 2002-2008 and measures of consulting and inspecting activity. Negative binomial generalised estimating equations modelled claim and disability day rates by study arm and year, controlling for firm characteristics. RESULTS: Among 2153 firms, firm characteristics and 2002-2005 rates of work injury claims and disability days were similar across arms. Firm outcomes were significantly different from year to year, but study arm by year interactions were insignificant indicating similar trends for all three study arms. 83% of HSA targeted firms were contacted and 63% engaged while 75% of MOL targeted firms were inspected with orders written in 56%. CONCLUSIONS: Consultation and enforcement programmes as implemented were not sufficient to reduce work injury outcomes over 21 month follow-up. Lack of benefit could be due to non-specific firm selection methods, limited firm participation in interventions, low intervention intensity or insensitivity of available outcomes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".