Assessing occupational health and safety of young workers who use youth employment centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescents and young adults who are out of school are at elevated risk for a work injury. METHODS: To obtain more information on this "high risk" group of young workers, young people at youth employment centers across Ontario were asked through an online survey about training, unsafe work conditions, work injuries and safety knowledge. RESULTS: The 1,886 youth who completed the survey reported a medically attended work injury rate of 14.45 per 100 FTEs. Also, the most common unsafe work conditions were dust/particles, trip hazards and heavy lifting. In addition, many young workers reported using much of their income for living essentials (e.g., rent). CONCLUSIONS: Though not a representative sample, it appears that youth using employment centers experience many unsafe work conditions and work injuries. While many report safety training, the nature and effectiveness of this training remains to be determined. The large portion of young workers out of school and working for living essentials included in this sample suggest that youth employment centers should be considered in future prevention efforts targeting this vulnerable subgroup of workers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".