Examining occupational health and safety vulnerability among Canadian workers with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare workers with and without disabilities on their reported workplace hazard exposure and the presence of occupational health and safety vulnerability factors. METHODS: Working-aged adults in Ontario or British Columbia were recruited to participate in a cross-sectional survey (n = 1988). Self-reported measures included demographic factors, work-related variables, perceived level of activity limitation at work, and presence of work safety vulnerability factors utilizing a novel framework. RESULTS: Reporting a disability at work was significantly associated with greater hazard exposure than those without a disability. In addition, those reporting a disability at work were more likely to be employed in conditions where hazard exposure was combined with inadequate policies and procedures, or hazard exposures were combined with inadequate empowerment. CONCLUSIONS: Work safety vulnerability is one way that health inequalities can be perpetuated even among those with disabilities who have found work. Our results suggest that employers and policy makers need to focus on assessing and addressing hazard exposures and targeting occupational health and safety resources in the workplace in a way that includes workers with disabilities. Implications for Rehabilitation Workers with disabilities experience greater hazard exposure than those without a disability. Those with moderate and severe disabilities reported occupational health and safety vulnerability, suggesting that workplace accommodations should be available to a broader range of disability levels. It appears that, above and beyond standard safety procedures, providing workplace accommodations for people with disabilities may further reduce their hazard exposure and improve their safety.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".