From Awareness to Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An exploratory qualitative case study investigated how different sectors of a highly industrialized community mobilized in the 1990s to help workers exposed to asbestos. For this study, thirty key informants including representatives from industry, workers, the community, and local politicians participated in semi-structured interviews and focus groups. The analysis was framed by a "Dimensions of Community Change" model. The informants highlighted the importance of raising awareness, and the need for leadership, social and organizational networks, acquiring skills and resources, individual and community power, holding shared values and beliefs, and perseverance. We found that improvements in occupational health and safety came from persistently communicating a clearly defined issue ("asbestos exposure causes cancer") and having an engaged community that collaborated with union leadership. Notable successes included stronger occupational health services, a support group for workers and widows, the fast-tracking of compensation for workers exposed to asbestos, and a reduction in hazardous emissions.
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 | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".