Workers' compensation in Canada: a case for greater public accountability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In this article, the authors argue that workers' compensation policies in Canada should be made more accountable to elected governments. The changing nature of occupational risks has created a range of workplace injuries against which current workers' compensation programs do not adequately insure. The existence of workers' compensation alongside the other components of the social‐safety net may have created significant numbers of individuals who are either not receiving compensation when they should be or are receiving compensation when they should not be. The implication is that other programs bear some of the costs that should be borne by workers' compensation and, conversely, that some of the costs borne by workers' compensation should be borne by other social programs. These “gaps and overlaps” indicate that workers' compensation should be better integrated with the rest of the programs that make up the Canadian social‐safety net. The article concludes with a menu of reforms, including the establishment, through legislation, of a formal reporting relationship; changes to the composition and size of governance structures; the introduction of strategic planning; and the establishment of performance measurement processes. Sommaire: Selon les auteurs de cet article, les politiques concernant les accidents du travail au Canada devraient relever davantage des gouvernements élus. L'évolution des risques professionnels a Créé toute une gamme d'accidents du travail pour lesquels l'assurance des régimes actuels d'indemnisation est inadéquate. L'existence des régimes d'assurance contre les accidents du travail parallèlement aux autres éléments de sécurité sociale aurait pour effet de multiplier le nombre de personnes quisoit ne reçoivent pas de prestations lorsqu'elles devraient en recevoir, soit l'inverse. Par conséquent, d'autres programmes défraient certains des coûts qui incombent au régime des accidents du travail, tandis que ce dernier défraie des coûts imputables a d'autres programmes sociaux. Ces lacunes et chevauchements indiquent que le régime d'assurance contre les accidents du travail devrait être mieux intégré au reste des programmes qui constituent le filet de sécurité sociale au Canada. L'article propose une série de réformes, dont l'adoption légiférée d'une relation formelle de compte rendu, la modification de la composition et de la taille des structures de gouvernance, l'adoption de la planification stratégique, et l'établissement de processus de mesure du rendement.
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 | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".