Rates of carpal tunnel syndrome, epicondylitis, and rotator cuff claims in Ontario workers during 1997.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this research was the calculation of crude and specific rates of first-allowed, lost-time carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), epicondylitis, and rotator cuff syndrome/tear (RCS/RCT) claims in Ontario workers during 1997. A secondary objective was to determine if results related to these diagnoses were consistent with findings for all cumulative trauma disorders affecting the specific part of upper extremity region. Rates were calculated by combining claim counts and population "at-risk" estimates derived from the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board databases and Canadian Labour Force Survey, respectively. The prevention index was used to prioritize occupations for intervention. Gender-specific rates declined as one moved proximally along the upper extremity. Similarly, female to male claim rate ratios declined from 1.61 for CTS to 0.47 for RCS/RCT. Frequently occurring highest rate and prevention index occupational categories across gender and diagnoses included "textiles, furs & leathergoods" and "other machining occupations". Diagnosis-specific findings were consistent with previously reported part of upper extremity findings.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".