"In God's pocket": accidents, injuries, and perceptions of risk among contemporary Newfoundland fish harvesters
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As research in provincial, national and international contexts has shown, commercial fishing is one of the most dangerous occupations. Different approaches to risk and perceptions of risk (such as biophysical, structural, cultural, and human capital) often examine safety from a single perspective, resulting in partial understandings of the causes of accident and injury. This thesis presents fish harvesters' observations on safety at sea through their descriptions of risky events, accidents and near-misses, and their views on the effectiveness of recent safety initiatives, in an effort to create a more multidimensional understanding of risk and accidents at sea. Major findings include insights about the cascading effects of risk factors seen through the eyes of harvesters and their perceptions of the unintended safety consequences of conservation regulations. Tomer and colleagues' (1999) participatory safety intervention process is proposed as an effective way to address the interactive nature of such risk factors and improve prevention.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 it