Examining the decline in lost-time claim rates across age groups in Ontario between 1991 and 2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Given the tendency for young people to show elevated work injury rates, this study sought to examine trends in young worker and adult compensation claim rates in a Canadian province. METHODS: Workers' compensation records and labour force survey data from 1991 to 2007 were used to compute claim rates by age group. To examine the contribution of work-related factors to claim rates by age group, multivariate analyses included industry and job tenure. RESULTS: Descriptive analysis showed that age groups had different rates of declines over the time period. Multivariate analyses showed that claim rate declines for older adults were greatest prior to 1999. Young workers showed the largest declines after 1999. There was no indication that changes in industry or job tenure accounted for the trends in claim rates among older or younger workers. CONCLUSIONS: This study is one of the first to show a convergence in youth and adult workers' compensation claims in a North American jurisdiction. Ruling out work-related factors increases the possibility that systemic interventions may have contributed to the convergence. This provides policy makers in occupational health and safety with empirical data to guide targeting of resources.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".