A Systematic Review of Occupational Health and Safety Interventions With Economic Analyses
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We reviewed the occupational health and safety intervention literature to synthesize evidence on financial merits of such interventions. METHODS: A literature search included journal databases, existing systematic reviews, and studies identified by content experts. Studies meeting inclusion criteria were assessed for quality. Evidence was synthesized within industry-intervention type clusters. RESULTS: We found strong evidence that ergonomic and other musculoskeletal injury prevention interventions in manufacturing and warehousing are worth undertaking in terms of their financial merits. We also found strong evidence that multisector disability management interventions are worth undertaking. CONCLUSIONS: While the economic evaluation of interventions in this literature warrants further expansion, we found a sufficient number of studies to identify strong, moderate, and limited evidence in certain industry-intervention clusters. The review also provided insights into how the methodological quality of economic evaluations in this literature could be improved.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it