Causality Advocacy: Workers’ Compensation Cases as Resources for Identifying and Preventing Diseases of Modernity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An appeal process for an injured worker compensation case is a unique opportunity to debate and integrate evidence concerning a potential causal relationship between observations of occupational disease and exposures to various putative risk factors that may also be of significance in public health protection. Through application of Hill's indicia to the evidence presented in a recent appeal process concerning a breast cancer case for a female border guard, a novel epidemic, tentatively called "occupational BRCAness" has been identified and a causal relationship with exposures to traffic-related air pollution and shift work and possibly secondhand tobacco smoke is inferred. Application of the audit method by worker advocates to other compensation appeals processes for other diseases might similarly yield causal relations with exposures to occupational risk factors with relevance to public health.
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 | 0.097 | 0.240 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".