The Relationship between Age and Work Injury in British Columbia: Examining Differences across Time and Nature of Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between age and the lost-time workers' compensation claims in British Columbia, Canada, over three time periods (1997-98, 2001-02 and 2005-06). We examined if the relationship between age and risk of lost-time claims is consistent over time and for different nature of injury categories. METHODS: Secondary analyses of lost-time workers' compensation claims combined with estimates of person-years of exposure generated from the Canadian Labour Force Survey were performed. Analyses examined the relationship between age and claim risk using sex-stratified regression models, adjusting for time period, occupational characteristics and whether the claimant was employed in the goods or service industry. Multiplicative interaction terms were used to examine if the relationship between age and lost-time claim risk changed over time. Seven separate regression models were generated to explore the variation in the effect of age across nature of injury groups. RESULTS: We observed important differences in the relationship between age and risk of injury depending on the nature of injury examined. A negative relationship was observed between age and lost-time claims for open wounds, while a positive relationship was observed for traumatic injuries to bones, nerves and the spinal cord. We found no evidence that the relationship between age and risk of lost-time claims changed over time periods. CONCLUSIONS: The association between age and risk of lost-time claims depends on the nature of injury under investigation. We found no evidence that the relationship between age and overall lost-time claim risk has changed over time in British Columbia.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".