Risk of work injury among adolescent students from single and partnered parent families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parental involvement in keeping their children safe at work has been examined in a handful of studies, with mixed results. Evidence has suggested that non-work injury risk is higher among children from single-parent families, but little is known about their risk for work-related injuries. METHODS: Five survey cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey were pooled to create a nationally representative sample of employed 15-19-year old students (N = 16,620). Multivariable logistic regression estimated the association between family status and work injury. RESULTS: Risk of work-related repetitive strains (OR:1.24, 95%CI: 0.69-2.22) did not differ by family type. However, children of single parents were less likely to sustain a work injury receiving immediate medical care (OR:0.43, 95%CI: 0.19-0.96). CONCLUSION: Despite advantages and disadvantages related to family types, there is no evidence that work-related injury risk among adolescents from single parent families is greater than that of partnered-parent families. Am. J. Ind. Med. 60:285-294, 2017. © 2017 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".