Injury Profiles Associated with Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining in Tarkwa, Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) is inherently risky, but little is known about mining-associated hazards and injuries despite the tremendous growth worldwide of ASGM and the benefits it offers. The current study aimed to characterize the physical injuries associated with ASGM in Ghana to guide policy formulation. A cross-sectional survey was carried out in the Tarkwa mining district of the Western Region of Ghana in 2014. A total of 404 small-scale miners were recruited and interviewed regarding their occupational injury experiences over the preceding 10 years using a paper-based structured questionnaire. Nearly one-quarter (23.5%) of the miners interviewed reported getting injured over the previous 10 years, and the overall injury rate was calculated to be 5.39 per 100 person years. The rate was significantly higher for women (11.93 per 100 person years) and those with little mining experience (e.g., 25.31 per 100 person years for those with less than one year of work experience). The most injury-prone mining activities were excavation (58.7%) and crushing (23.1%), and over 70% of the injuries were reported to be due to miners being hit by an object. The majority of the injuries (57%) were lacerations, and nearly 70% of the injuries were to the upper or lower limbs. Approximately one-third (34.7%) of the injuries resulted in miners missing more than two weeks of work. One-quarter of the injured workers believed that abnormal work pressure played a role in their injuries, and nearly two-fifths believed that their injuries could have been prevented, with many citing personal protective equipment as a solution. About one-quarter of the employees reported that their employers never seemed to be interested in the welfare or safety of their employees. These findings greatly advance our understanding of occupational hazards and injuries amongst ASGM workers and help identify several intervention points.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".