Returning to Work After Electrical Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to gain an understanding of workers' experiences with returning to work, the challenges they experienced, and the supports they found most beneficial when returning to work after a workplace electrical injury. Thirteen semistructured qualitative telephone interviews were conducted with individuals who experienced an electrical injury at the workplace. Participants were recruited from specialized burns rehabilitation programs in Ontario, Canada. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis used to analyze the qualitative interviews. Data regarding workers' demographics, injury events, and occupational categories were also gathered to characterize the sample.Participants identified three distinct categories of challenges: 1) physical, cognitive, and psychosocial impairments and their effects on their work performance; 2) feelings of guilt, blame, and responsibility for the injury; and 3) having to return to the workplace or worksite where the injury took place. The most beneficial supports identified by the injured workers included: 1) support from family, friends, and coworkers; and 2) the receipt of rehabilitation services specialized in electrical injury. The most common advice to others after electrical injuries included: 1) avoiding electrical injury; 2) feeling ready to return to work; 3) filing a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board injury/claims report;4) proactive self-advocacy; and 5) garnering the assistance of individuals who understood electrical injuries to advocate on their behalf. Immediate and persistent physical, cognitive, psychosocial, and support factors can affect individuals' abilities to successfully return to work after an electrical injury. Specialized services and advocacy were viewed as beneficial to successful return to work.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".