Systematic Reviews in Occupational Health and Safety: where are we and where should we go?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systematic Reviews have been introduced to improve the synthesis of available evidence and to reduce bias in the conclusions about a body of evidence. Nowadays, Systematic Review is an established method also in the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) field. It is the Cochrane Work Review Group that facilitates authors to produce Cochrane reviews of intervention topics in this area. A variety of guidelines used Cochrane Work reviews for underpinning their recommendations. Due to the comprehensive search and reproducibility of the methods of a systematic review, it turned out that systematic reviews can be powerful in changing beliefs. For example, studies published in the eighties advocated the use of back schools. Nowadays, we know that the total body of evidence has changed the traditional view that training in lifting techniques could prevent back pain. 'Sitting is the new smoking' is an eye catching nicely alliterating motto, but it is of course highly overstated. The findings of a Cochrane review of the effects of interventions to decrease sitting at work showed that sitting time can be reduced by a bit less than two hours per day by providing sit-stand desks plus education. However, it is unclear if this is sufficient to counter the effects of sitting. A wealth of evidence on OSH interventions has been collected by international collaboration in the Cochrane Work Review Group. This can be extended to systematic reviews of the effects of exposure of workers to assess to which risks of adverse health effects they are exposed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".