Occupational Contact Dermatitis in the Canadian Aircraft Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aircraft building exposes workers to irritant and sensitizing products. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article was to study occupational dermatoses among aircraft workers over 25 years. METHODS: The files of aerospace workers referred between 1990 and 2015 were extracted from the database of the McGill University Health Centre contact dermatitis clinic. These were subdivided according to demographics, type of work, patch testing results, and final diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 305 workers, 58% were 40 years or younger; one third were women. Onset of dermatitis varied from 2 months to 25 years, but 120 cases (39%) occurred during the first 3 years. Fifty-one percent of the cases involved assemblers, and 27% were composite material technicians, which were overrepresented as they constitute 10% of the workforce. Of the 305 workers, 152 suffered from allergic contact dermatitis, and 96 had irritant contact dermatitis. Of those with allergic contact dermatitis, 124 reacted to epoxy-based workplace products, but only 48 had positive patch tests to commercially available epoxy allergens. CONCLUSION: More than 60% of the cases of epoxy allergy would have been missed without testing with workplace products.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".