MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146772165 · doi:10.6027/tn2011-501

Fatal occupational accidents in the Nordic countries 2003 – 2008

2011· book· en· W2146772165 on OpenAlexaff
Leifur Gústafsson, Kristinn Tómasson

Bibliographic record

VenueTemaNord · 2011
Typebook
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsNordic Life Science Pipeline (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupational safety and healthOccupational accidentStatuteEnvironmental healthMedicineBusinessGeographyForensic engineeringPoison controlInjury preventionPolitical scienceEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report is a review of the Nordic countries systems regarding fatal occupational accidents, i.e. the reporting process, the investigation process, the registration process, the registries, and the legal statutes. The report shows that during the time period 2003-2008 the total number of fatal occupational accidents in the Nordic countries was 1243, i.e. between 1.51 to 2.49 fatal occupational accidents per 100,000 workers per year varying between countries. The report also shows that more than 93 % of these fatal accidents involved males, which reflects the predominance of men in the most dangerous branches, i.e. agriculture, construction, transport, and communication. The report concludes that in order to make data on occupational accidents more comparable among the Nordic countries and improve our common ability to identify prevention strategies, a closer collaboration in the field of occupational accident investigation and registration is needed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTemaNordSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207