A systematic review of lost-time injuries in the global mining industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mining is a hazardous occupation with elevated rates of lost-time injury and disability. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is twofold: 1) To identify the type of lost-time injuries in the mining workforce, regardless of the kind of mining and 2) To examine the antecedent factors to the occupational injury (lost-time injuries). METHODS: We identified and extracted primary papers related to lost-time injuries in the mining sector by conducting a systematic search of the electronic literature in the eight health and related databases. RESULTS: We critically reviewed nine articles in the mining sector that examined lost-time injuries. Musculoskeletal injuries (hand, back, limbs, fractures, lacerations and muscle contusions), slips and falls were identified as types of lost-time injuries. The review identified the following antecedent factors related to lost-time injuries: the mining work environment (underground mining), being male, age, working with mining equipment, organizational size, falling objects, disease status, job training and lack of occupational safety management teams, recovery time, social supports, access to health services, pre-injury health status and susceptibility to injury. DISCUSSIONS: The mining sector is a hazardous environment that increases workers' susceptibility to occupational injuries. There is a need to create and implement monitoring systems of lost-time injuries to implement prevention programs.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".