Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article examines associations between selected work- and non-work-related factors and the incidence of chronic back problems over the next two years. DATA SOURCE: The data are from the longitudinal household component of the National Population Health Survey, conducted by Statistics Canada. The analysis is based on 3,234 male and 3,129 female respondents who, in 1994/95, were aged 16 or older, employed, rated their health as good, very good or excellent, and reported no diagnosed chronic back problems. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: All analyses were weighted to represent the Canadian population in 1994/95. Unadjusted cross-tabulations and multiple logistic regression were used to examine the associations between respondents' characteristics in 1994/95 and newly diagnosed chronic back problems in 1996/97. MAIN RESULTS: More than 1 million (9%) Canadian workers aged 16 or older developed chronic back problems between 1994/95 and 1996/97. Back injury, chronic stress, depression, and being aged 40 to 49 were significantly associated with subsequent chronic back problems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".