Diverging Trends in the Incidence of Occupational and Nonoccupational Injury in Ontario, 2004–2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We describe trends in occupational and nonoccupational injury among working-age adults in Ontario. METHODS: We conducted an observational study of adults aged 15 to 64 over the period 2004 through 2011, estimating the incidence of occupational and nonoccupational injury from emergency department (ED) records and, separately, from survey responses to 5 waves of a national health interview survey. RESULTS: Over the observation period, the annual percentage change (APC) in the incidence of work-related injury was -5.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = -7.3, -4.6) in ED records and -7.4% (95% CI=-11.1, -3.5) among survey participants. In contrast, the APC in the incidence of nonoccupational injury was -0.3% (95% CI=-0.4, 0.0) in ED records and 1.0% (95% CI=0.4, 1.6) among survey participants. Among working-age adults, the percentage of all injuries attributed to work exposures declined from 20.0% in 2004 to 15.2% in 2011 in ED records and from 27.7% in 2001 to 16.9% in 2010 among survey participants. CONCLUSIONS: Among working-age adults in Ontario, nearly all of the observed decline in injury incidence over the period 2004 through 2011 is attributed to reductions in occupational injury.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".