MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2953193628 · doi:10.82308/39694

Workers' compensation facing current issues : comparative analysis between Japan and Canada

2005· article· en· W2953193628 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ayumi Takizawa

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverworkCompensation (psychology)Work (physics)Workers' compensationPolitical scienceBusinessRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringEconomicsLabour economicsPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Karoshi, or death from overwork, is a tragic modern work event. Continuous occurrence of karoshi in Japan offers an opportunity to reconsider the contemporary working environment, and especially the workers' compensation system. Strongly bound by the traditional notion of work accident, the Japanese workers' compensation system has shown difficulty handling karoshi cases. This fact calls into question the adequacy of the current workers' compensation scheme in the work environment it is meant to oversee. To analyze the issue, this thesis will use a comparative law method. The basis of comparison will be Ontario, Canada, which shares a system similar to Japan's, but does not produce karoshi cases. Particular emphasis will be put on stress claims and claims from women, since both share some similarities with karoshi claims. The findings from this comparison will offer a valuable basis for discussion of the current and the future of workers' compensation and other protection systems in Japan.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.021
Science and technology studies0.0120.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicEmployment and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→