How physicians allocate causation: a scenario study with factorial design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Causation is a complex concept but important in suspected work-related disease. Physicians routinely make initial assessments of causation as part of their work, but the factors contributing to these assessments are not well understood. AIMS: To determine which factors influence a family physician's assessment of causation when seeing patients with suspected work-related injury or illness. METHODS: Four groups of family physicians with differing levels of prior reporting (zero, low, medium, high) to the Workers Compensation Board received a questionnaire including four randomly allocated case scenarios. For each scenario there were four versions with either strong or weak causal features suggesting work or non-work factors were important causes or contributors. Responses to questions were made on a series of visual analogue scales. RESULTS: The nature of the condition and scenario type (i.e. strength of the causal information about workplace and non-workplace factors) were associated with the physicians' opinion on work-relatedness. Understanding the nature of the patient's work, the timing of symptoms and the patients' opinion about work-relatedness were viewed by the physicians as important. A decision that a condition was not work related was influenced primarily by the strength of potential causes outside work. Prior reporting history of the physician was not associated with opinions on work-relatedness, nor the factors considered in reaching this decision. CONCLUSIONS: The characteristics of the case scenario were more important in determining a physician's opinion about work-relatedness than the characteristics of the physician.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".