An international comparison of women's occupational health issues in the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Canada, Hong Kong and Singapore: the CIDA-SEAGEP Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An international comparison study of women's occupational health issues was carried out in 2000 for the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Canada, Hong Kong and Singapore. The study was funded by the Canadian International Development Agency's Southeast Asia Gender Equity Program. AIM: The objective was to compare the issues, risk factors, social determinants, and challenges in women's occupational health, according to the status of economic development as defined by the World Bank. METHOD: Data were collected through 27 key informant interviews of high-ranking government officials and senior researchers, self-administered questionnaires on country or regional statistics and 16 courtesy calls. RESULTS: Results indicated that women's occupational health problems common in these countries or regions included women's long hours of work (double workday), shift work and a caring role for family and friends. Problems reported in developing countries but not developed countries included poor access to training and protective equipment, and insufficient legislation to protect women's rights. Problems reported in developed countries but not in developing countries included obesity, smoking and not including women in health research. CONCLUSION: This paper provides insights into the changing environment in the workplace, such as increasing participation of women in the paid workforce and changes in gender differences due to the changing country economy, for improving women's occupational health.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".