MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092041153 · doi:10.1155/2010/526487

Occupational Health and Safety Issues in Ontario Sawmills and Veneer/Plywood Plants: A Pilot Study

2010· article· en· W2092041153 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Dave K. Verma, Cecil Demers, Don S. Shaw, Paul J. Verma, Lawrence A. Kurtz, Murray M. Finkelstein, Karen des Tombe, Tom Welton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental and Public Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational exposure and asthma
Canadian institutionsWorkplace Health, Safety and Compensation CommissionMcMaster University
FundersWorkplace Safety and Insurance Board
KeywordsOccupational hygieneBioaerosolEnvironmental healthVeneerEnvironmental scienceNoise exposureOccupational safety and healthOccupational exposureWoodworkingMedicineEngineeringMeteorologyGeographyDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A pilot study was conducted within the Ontario sawmill and veneer/plywood manufacturing industry. Information was collected by postal questionnaire and observational walk-through surveys. Industrial hygiene walk-through surveys were conducted at 22 work sites, and measurements for wood dust, noise, and bioaerosol were taken. The aim of the study was to obtain data on the current status regarding health and safety characteristics and an estimate of wood dust, noise, and bioaerosol exposures. The occupational exposure to wood dust and noise are similar to what has been reported in this industry in Canada and elsewhere. Airborne wood dust concentration ranged between 0.001 mg/m³ and 4.87 mg/m³ as total dust and noise exposure ranged between 55 and 117 dB(A). The study indicates the need for a more comprehensive industry-wide study of wood dust, noise, and bioaersols.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental and Public HealthSame topicOccupational exposure and asthmaFrench-language works237,207