MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559789393

Gender, Occupational Health and Safety Practices, and Injury Among Saskatchewan Farm Adolescents

2010· article· en· W2559789393 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erin Crouchman

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupational safety and healthEnvironmental healthFarm workersOccupational injuryInjury preventionPoison controlMedicineGeographyAgriculture
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Farming is an hazardous occupation.The underlying determinants of farm injury are not well understood among adolescent populations, particularly from a gender lens. Objectives:(1) To evaluate the association between gender and occupational health and safety practices reported for hazardous work among working adolescent farm children; and, (2) to evaluate the association between use of such practices and time to farm injury, and also whether such associations vary by gender.Methods: Survey data from an existing farm injury cohort were available for analysis.Occupational health and safety practices were: non-use of personal protective equipment, nonuse of training and supervision for work with heavy equipment, non-use of training and supervision for work with large animals, and conduct of hazardous tasks.Logistic regression was used to examine associations between gender and use of safety practices, and Cox regression was used to examine relationships between occupational health and safety practices and time to first injury.Results: Girls reported increased odds for the non-use of personal protective equipment (adjusted OR 2.39 [95% CI: 1.16, 4.94]).There was no evidence of an association between gender and the conduct of hazardous tasks (adjusted OR 0.69 [95% CI: 0.28, 1.73]).Gender patterns surrounding non-use of training and supervision for work with equipment (adjusted OR 2.38 [95% CI: 0.53, 10.66]) and with animals (adjusted OR 1.52 [95% CI: 0.75, 3.06]) were not significant.Use of personal protective equipment (adjusted HR 1.25 [95% CI: 0.76, 2.06]) did not significantly reduce the risk of farm injury, neither did use of training and supervision during equipment work (HR 1.25 [95% CI: 0.69, 2.28]), nor during animal work (HR 1.06 [95% CI: iii 0.59, 1.92]), or the conduct of hazardous tasks (HR 1.04 [95% CI: 0.67, 1.63]).Further, there was no significant modification of these associations and injury by gender.Conclusions: Among adolescents, farm occupational health and safety practices appear to vary by gender.Girls on farms report fewer exposures to hazards, and receive less training and supervision and less use of personal protective equipment, consistent with assigned tasks.While gender appears to play a role in the assignment of farm tasks and occupational health and safety practices, these practices did not reduce the likelihood of subsequent injury.As well, the latter associations did not appear to vary by gender.A public health approach that recognizes gender as a determinant of hazardous farm exposures and associated occupational health and safety practices is needed.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.191 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)Same topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207