Age, occupational demands and the risk of serious work injury
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: Interest in the relationship between age and serious work injury is increasing, given the ageing of the workforce in many industrialized economies. AIMS: To examine if the relationship between age and risk of serious musculoskeletal injury differs when the physical demands of work are higher from those when they are lower. METHODS: A secondary analysis of workers' compensation claims in the State of Victoria, Australia, combined with estimates of the insured labour force. We focused on musculoskeletal claims, which required 10 days of absence or health care expenditures beyond a pecuniary threshold. Regression models examined the relationship between age and claim-risk across workers with different occupational demands, as well as the relationship between occupational demands and musculoskeletal claim-risk across different age groups. RESULTS: Older age and greater physical demands at work were associated with an increased risk of musculoskeletal claims. In models stratified by occupational demands, we observed the relationship between age and claim-risk was steeper when occupational demands were higher. We also observed that the relationship between occupational demands and risk of work injury claim peaked among workers aged 25-44, attenuating among those aged 45 and older. CONCLUSIONS: This study's results suggest that although older workers and occupations with higher demands should be the targets of primary preventive efforts related to serious musculoskeletal injuries, there may also be gains in targeting middle-aged workers in the most physically demanding occupations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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