Young people and work injuries: an examination of jurisdictional variation within Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors of work injuries among Canadian adolescents and young adults and to examine provincial differences in work injury rates. METHODS: Information on work and injuries were obtained from a representative sample of 14 541 Canadians aged 15-24 years. Respondents reported medically attended, work related injuries in the past 12 months, work hours, and type of occupation. A multivariate logistic regression on likelihood of work injury included demographic and work variables, as well as province of residence. RESULTS: Even when factors expected to vary by province such as occupation were statistically controlled, Saskatchewan youth were about twice as likely to be injured at work compared to Ontario youth. Type of job was a major correlate of injury risk, with all jobs showing higher risk than administrative clerical jobs. Even with type of job controlled, visible minorities, students, and 15-17 year olds had a reduced likelihood of work injury than their counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Many young Canadians sustain work injuries that have clear medical costs and potential long term health consequences. Individual level explanations for youth's increased risk for workplace injuries (for example, inexperience or developmental factors) need to be supplemented with a better understanding of the broader social, economic, and political factors across jurisdictions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".