Gender and Occupational Health and Safety Requirements among Saskatchewan Farm Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children on farms perform hazardous work that exposes them to risks for injury. Hazards include operation of heavy machinery, working with limited supervision, working at heights, and performing work prohibited by law in other industries. Incidence rates and patterns of injury are known to differ between boys and girls on farms. Farm adherence to occupational health and safety practices, and whether such practices vary by gender, has received limited study in this occupational setting. The objective of this study was to evaluate associations between gender and work practices, and required occupational health and safety practices, within a sample of adolescent children age 12 to 18 years living on Saskatchewan farms. A cross-sectional study was performed. Measures were obtained by self-report. We compared requirements for boys and girls on the following: (1) use of personal protective equipment (PPE), (2) conduct of specific hazardous jobs, (3) training and supervision for equipment work, and (4) training and supervision for large animal work. A total of 434 children were identified, and 297 (68%) met the eligibility criteria. Of these, 170 were boys (57%) with a mean age of 14.5 years (SD 1.9). Occupational health and safety requirements varied by gender; girls were less likely to be required to use PPE (adjusted OR 2.39; 95% CI: 1.16, 4.94). There was no evidence of an association between gender and the conduct of hazardous work. Gender patterns in required training and supervision for work suggested disadvantages for girls, but were not significant. Adolescent girls and boys both performed hazardous jobs on the farm. Girls were as likely to conduct hazardous jobs but not to be required to use PPE. This gender disparity may indicate a need for a public health approach that recognizes gender as a determinant of work assignment and of health and safety practices on farms.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".