Be the fairest of them all: Challenges and recommendations for the treatment of gender in occupational health research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both women's and men's occupational health problems merit scientific attention. Researchers need to consider the effect of gender on how occupational health issues are experienced, expressed, defined, and addressed. More serious consideration of gender-related factors will help identify risk factors for both women and men. METHODS: The authors, who come from a number of disciplines (ergonomics, epidemiology, public health, social medicine, community psychology, economics, sociology) pooled their critiques in order to arrive at the most common and significant problems faced by occupational health researchers who wish to consider gender appropriately. RESULTS: This paper describes some ways that gender can be and has been handled in studies of occupational health, as well as some of the consequences. The paper also suggests specific research practices that avoid errors. Obstacles to gender-sensitive practices are considered. CONCLUSIONS: Although gender-sensitive practices may be difficult to operationalize in some cases, they enrich the scientific quality of research and should lead to better data and ultimately to well-targeted prevention programs.
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 | 0.204 | 0.202 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.043 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".