MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045630147 · doi:10.4284/sej.2009.76.1.47

Post‐Injury Work Outcomes Revisited

2009· article· en· W2045630147 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marjorie L. Baldwin, Karen Smith Conway, Ju‐Chin Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueSouthern Economic Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndogeneityDuration (music)Work (physics)Demographic economicsInstrumental variablePsychologyEconomicsEconometricsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use data for Ontario workers with permanent impairments resulting from work‐related injuries to investigate the complex relationships among post‐injury work outcomes: wages, accommodations, returning to the same or different employer, and duration of work absence. We argue the different aspects of post‐injury work experience may be jointly determined, making post‐injury job characteristics endogenous in a duration model. To explore the endogeneity issues we instrument post‐injury job variables from first‐stage equations and compare results from this “informed” model to a “naive” model that treats the variables as exogenous. We find that returning to one's pre‐injury employer is associated with more favorable post‐injury work outcomes, including higher wages, greater likelihood of job accommodations, and shorter durations of work absence relative to workers who change employers. We also find substantial differences between the naive and informed models, with accommodations having the predicted negative effect on duration only after we control for endogeneity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouthern Economic JournalSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207