Workers with hand dermatitis and workplace training experiences: A qualitative perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Workplace training may help to prevent contact dermatitis, a common work-related disease. Information on the characteristics of existing workplace training programs and worker perceptions of this training is limited. METHODS: Fourteen workers with suspected occupational contact dermatitis participated in one-on-one, semi-structured interviews. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used to identify interview themes. RESULTS: Workers expressed a desire for hands-on training with content relevant to their job tasks, favored training from supervisors who had practical experience, and were conflicted about employer motivations for providing training. Few workers had received training on skin protection. In many cases, the training workers had received differed greatly from their desired training. CONCLUSIONS: Although, workers with contact dermatitis describe having received workplace training, some question its value and effectiveness. This perspective may be attributed not only to the content and methods of training but also the health and safety culture of the workplace. Am. J. Ind. Med. 60:69-76, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".