Occupational Health Programs for Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining: A Systematic Review for the WHO Global Plan of Action for Workers’ Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Workers in the informal economy often incur exposure to well-documented occupational health hazards. Insufficient attention has been afforded to rigorously evaluating intervention programs to reduce the risks, especially in artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM). Objectives: This systematic review, conducted as part of the World Health Organization's Global Plan of Action for Workers' Health, sought to assess the state of knowledge on occupational health programs and interventions for the informal artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) sector, an occupation which directly employs at least 50 million people. Methods: We used a comprehensive search strategy for four well-known databases relevant to health outcomes: PubMed, Engineering Village, OVID Medline, and Web of Science, and employed the PRISMA framework for our analysis. Findings: for this sector although target interventions addressing specific hazards exist. Major areas of intervention-education and introduction of mercury-reducing/eliminating technology were identified, and the challenges and limitations of each intervention taken into assessment. Even for these, however, there was a lack of standardization for measuring outcome or impact let alone long-term health outcomes for miners and mining communities. Conclusion: There is an urgent need for research on comprehensive occupational health programs addressing the array of hazards faced by artisanal and small-scale miners.
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 | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| 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".