MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111876384 · doi:10.1002/ajim.22111

Older farmers and machinery exposure—cause for concern?

2012· article· en· W2111876384 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Don Voaklander, Lesley Day, James A. Dosman, Louise Hagel, William Pickett

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Industrial Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Medical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Agricultural Statistics Service
KeywordsMedicineWork (physics)CohortOccupational safety and healthEnvironmental healthDemographyGerontologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The average age of farmers in North America is increasing each year. We had the unique opportunity to examine work patterns and how they change across the lifespan in a large cohort of farm operations. METHODS: Saskatchewan farms were surveyed via questionnaire during the winter of 2007 to examine the determinants of injury. A sub-sample of 2,751 male farmers aged 25 and older was used in this project. The primary dependent variable was the proportion of work time devoted to specific farm tasks which was related to advancing age. RESULTS: The weekly hours of work declined approximately 34% as farmers aged over the lifespan. Older farmers disproportionately retained tasks involving tractors and combines as they aged, so that the proportion of time spent operating machinery such as tractors and combines increased by about 40% in the older age groups. CONCLUSION: Exposure to potentially dangerous farm equipment does not decrease as much as would be expected based on an equal linear reduction in all work tasks as overall work quantity decreases with age. Older farmers remain relatively active in the workplace, and, therefore, prevention efforts should focus on safe machinery operation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.220 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Industrial MedicineSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207