Applying Machine Learning to Workers’ Compensation Data to Identify Industry-Specific Ergonomic and Safety Prevention Priorities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study leveraged a state workers' compensation claims database and machine learning techniques to target prevention efforts by injury causation and industry. METHODS: Injury causation auto-coding methods were developed to code more than 1.2 million Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation claims for this study. Industry groups were ranked for soft-tissue musculoskeletal claims that may have been preventable with biomechanical ergonomic (ERGO) or slip/trip/fall (STF) interventions. RESULTS: On the basis of the average of claim count and rate ranks for more than 200 industry groups, Skilled Nursing Facilities (ERGO) and General Freight Trucking (STF) were the highest risk for lost-time claims (>7 days). CONCLUSION: This study created a third, major causation-specific U.S. occupational injury surveillance system. These findings are being used to focus prevention resources on specific occupational injury types in specific industry groups, especially in Ohio. Other state bureaus or insurers may use similar methods.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".