Heart Disease and Occupational Risk Factors in the Canadian Population: An Exploratory Study Using the Canadian Community Health Survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to find temporal trends in the associations between cardiovascular disease and occupational risk factors in the context of the Canadian population. Population data were analyzed from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) collected between 2001 and 2014 for trends over time between heart disease and various occupational risk factors: hours worked, physical exertion at work, and occupation type (management/arts/education, business/finance, sales/services, trades/transportations, and primary industry/processing). We found no significant difference in the average number of hours worked/wk between individuals who report having heart disease in all years of data except in 2011 (F1,96 = 7.02, p = 0.009) and 2012 (F1,96 = 8.86, p = 0.004). We also found a significant difference in the degree of physical exertion at work in 2001 (F1,79 = 7.45, p = 0.008). There were statistically significant results of occupation type on self-reported heart disease from 2003 to 2014. Canadian data from the CCHS do not exhibit a trend toward an association between heart disease and the number of hours worked/wk. There is an association between heart disease and physical exertion at work, but the trend is inconsistent. The data indicate a trend toward an association between heart disease and occupation type, but further analysis is required to determine which occupation type may be associated with heart disease.
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.
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 | 0.016 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.054 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it