MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2480250600 · doi:10.3109/9780849374531-17

Enzymes

2006· book-chapter· en· W2480250600 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jonathan A. Bernstein, Katherine Sarlo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational exposure and asthma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionLegislationAgency (philosophy)Workers' compensationCompensation (psychology)Political scienceOccupational diseaseOccupational safety and healthBusinessWork (physics)LawPublic administrationMedicineEnvironmental healthEngineeringSociologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a prelude to a discussion of compensation issues specifically concerned with occupational asthma (OA), it is useful to review how occupational diseases per se evolved from the pre-eminence of injury as a raison d’eˆtre for workers’ disability and compensation. The concept of protecting workers from the consequences of occupational disease-as contrasted to occupational injury-is a relatively recent development among industrial countries. In the late 19th century, middle European countries, starting with Switzerland, Germany, and Austria, began to compensate workers for work-related injuries (1). Similar legislation appeared in Britain in the first decade of the 20th century. This change is reflected in the transformation of the names given to agencies that are responsible for compensation. For example, in Quebec, the first name of the agency was Commission of Labor Injuries (‘‘Commission des accidents de travail’’), and it was only in 1980 that the name of the agency became Commission of Health and Security at Work (‘‘Commission de la sante´et se´curite´ du travail’’) (2). In the United States, workers’ compensation legislation was under the purview of individual states, thereby resulting in a heterogeneity of disease definitions, covered diseases, exposure criteria, and other inconsistencies that still exist. Apart from three separate federal systems administered under the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, the Longshoreman’s and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act, and the Federal Employees Compensation Act, there are no uniform governmental standards in the United States to guide individual state compensation disability programs. The first compensation laws adopted by individual states restricted compensation to those diseases caused by accidental injuries. These were modeled after the original British Workers’ Compensation Statute of 1897. Massachusetts was the first state to extend legislation allowing for the compensation of ‘‘nontraumatic’’ occupational diseases. In 1920, New York State adopted the first schedule of compensable occupational diseases (3,4). California rapidly followed suit, and by the early 1930s, most states had passed workers’ compensation laws concerning occupational diseases, although few of these provided broad coverage for many of the occupational diseases then being reported.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOccupational exposure and asthmaFrench-language works237,207