A review of fatal accident incidence rate trends in fishing
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
BACKGROUND: Injury prevention in fishing is one of the most important occupational health challenges. AIM: The aim was to describe and compare internationally the trends of the fatal injury incidence rates and to discuss the impact of the implemented safety programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The review is based on journal articles and reports from the maritime authorities in Poland, United Kingdom, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, United States and Alaska and Canada. The original incidence rates were recalculated as per 1,000 person-years for international comparison of the trends. RESULTS: The risk of fatal accidents in fishing in the northern countries has been reduced by around 50% to an average of about 1 per 1,000 person-years. Norway and Canada keep the lowest rates with around 0.5 and 0.25 per 1,000 person-years. About half of the fatal injuries are related to vessel disasters and drowning. The safety programs seem to have good effects, but the risk is still about 25 to 50 times higher than for onshore workers. CONCLUSIONS: The overall fatal injury rates in the European and North American studies decreased by around 50% most probably as result of the implemented safety programs. However the high risk in fishing compared to onshore workers calls for continued and intensified safety programs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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