MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132232662 · doi:10.1002/ajim.20555

Causes of work‐related injuries among young workers in British Columbia

2008· article· en· W2132232662 on OpenAlexaffabout
Theresa Holizki, R. Christopher McDonald, Valerie S. Foster, Michael Guzmicky

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Industrial Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsWorkers Compensation Board of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforceMedicineOccupational safety and healthInjury preventionEnvironmental healthDemographyPoison controlSuicide preventionGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We conducted a study to determine the types and causes of serious injuries to young workers (YW) (ages 14-24) in British Columbia. METHODS: The WorkSafeBC database from 2000 to 2005 was searched for all claims, all non-health-care-only (NHCO) injuries and all serious injury claims involving workers aged 14-24. RESULTS: Of 384,250 NHCO claims, 15.6% were for YW, not significantly different from the British Columbia workforce (P > 0.75). Of the 5217 serious injuries, 9.8% (including 40 fatalities) were to YW-455 males and 56 females, significantly different from the workforce (50% male) ((2) = 259.8; df = 1; P < 0.001). Ten percentage of YW injuries occurred in the first week, 20% in the first month, of employment. Education level of injured YWs was lower than average for the provincial workforce. Only 38% of YWs injured in vehicle crashes (the most common cause of fatalities) were wearing seatbelts. CONCLUSIONS: Safety training should be provided before YWs start work and in media other than school. Seatbelt use should be addressed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations21
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Industrial MedicineSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207