MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105142493 · doi:10.1093/occmed/kqu090

The Ontario Workplace Health Champions Program

2014· article· en· W2105142493 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. L. Holness, Gary M. Liss

Bibliographic record

VenueOccupational Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupational safety and healthOccupational medicineMEDLINEMedicineEnvironmental healthFamily medicinePolitical scienceOccupational exposure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Incorporating occupational health content into the medical school curriculum is an ongoing challenge. In 1994, the Ontario Medical Association Section of Occupational and Environmental Medicine gathered together groups with an interest in clinical workplace health including government, universities, hospitals, research organizations and organized labour. A needs assessment was conducted and documented gaps in knowledge, skills and training related to workplace health. An occupational medicine physician (G.L.) was appointed and funded through a provincial educational project, the Physician Education Project in Workplace Health. The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) undertook a survey that documented the lack of educational activities in several of the five medical schools in Ontario. As a result of the needs assessment and survey of medical schools, the WSIB developed the Workplace Health Champions Program (WHCP). The WHCP supports Ontario medical schools to enhance and expand their curricula in occupational health. Starting in 1999 the five (and then six) medical faculties in Ontario signed agreements with the WSIB agreeing to: (i) develop and implement a workplace health curriculum to support medical training in workplace health issues primarily at the undergraduate education level, (ii) select a physician as Workplace Health Champion (WHC) to assist in the development and implementation of a workplace curriculum, (iii) keep the WSIB informed of the progress and impacts of the curriculum in the training programme and (iv) participate with the WSIB in an evaluation of the curriculum and its impact on the training of new physicians.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.390 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOccupational MedicineSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207