Outdoor workers and sun protection strategies: Two case study examples in Queensland, Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction - Outdoor workers are at risk of developing skin cancer because they are exposed to high levels of harmful ultraviolet radiation. The Outdoor Workers Sun Protection Project investigated sun protection strategies for high risk outdoor workers in rural and regional Australia. Methods - Fourteen workplaces (recruitment rate 37%) across four industries in rural and regional Queensland, Australia were recruited to the OWSPP. In 2011-2012, data were collected using pre- and post-intervention interviews and discussion groups. This article presents two workplaces as case study examples. Results - The flat organisational structure of workplace 1 supported the implementation of the Sun Safety Action Plan (SSAP), whilst the hierarchical organisational nature of workplace 2 delayed implementation of the SSAP. Neither workplace had an existing sun protection policy but both workplaces adopted one. An effect related to the researchers’ presence was seen in workplace 1 and to a lesser degree in workplace 2. Overt reciprocity was seen between management and workers in workplace 1 but this was not so evident in workplace 2. In both workplaces, the role of the workplace champion was pivotal to SSAP progression. Conclusions - These two case studies highlight a number of contextually bound workplace characteristics related to sun safety. These issues are (1) the structure of workplace, (2) policy, (3) an effect related to the researchers’ presence, (4) the workplace champion and (5) reciprocity. There are several recommendations from this article. Workplace health promotion strategies for sun safety need to be contextualised to individual workplaces to take advantage of the strengths of the workplace and to build capacity.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".