Feasibility of a Provincial Voluntary Reporting System for Work‐Related Asthma in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Ontario Work-Related Asthma Surveillance System: Physician Reporting (OWRAS) Network was established in 2007 to estimate the prevalence of work-related asthma (WRA) in Ontario, and to test the feasibility of collecting data for cases of WRA from physicians voluntarily. METHODS: More than 300 respirologists, occupational medicine physicians, allergists and primary care providers in Ontario were invited to participate in monthly reporting of WRA cases by telephone, postal service or e-mail. RESULTS: Since 2007, 49 physicians have registered with the OWRAS Network and, to date, have reported 34 cases of occupational asthma and 49 cases of work-exacerbated asthma. Highly reactive chemicals were the most frequently reported suspected causative agent of the 108 suspected exposures reported. CONCLUSION: Despite the challenge of enlisting a representative sample of physicians in Ontario willing to report, the OWRAS Network has shown that it is feasible to implement a voluntary reporting system for WRA; however, its long-term sustainability is currently unknown.
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 | 0.031 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".