Mathematical Procedure to Adjust for the Healthy Worker Effect: The Case of Firefighting, Diabetes, and Heart Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a mathematical procedure to adjust for one component of the healthy worker effect (HWE), namely, the healthy hired effect, on diabetes in the case of firefighting and heart disease. Three examples from real studies are given to illustrate, step-by-step, the application of the mathematical procedure. The mathematical procedure can be applied to adjust for other components of the HWE (e.g., the low-risk hired effect on obese individuals and smokers). In such cases, additional information will be needed to use the mathematical procedure. Results of applying the mathematical procedure in the case of firefighting and heart disease revealed the rather unexpected results that adjusting for diabetes selection on hiring leads to only a 3% to 9% increase in the magnitude of ratio statistics such as the standardized mortality ratio. It might be argued that the HWE from one component such as the healthy hired effect on diabetes might be small, but together with other components, the HWE might be large. Further investigation will be needed to support this argument.
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) | 0.000 | 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".