Examining the impact of occupational health and safety vulnerability on injury claim reporting in three Canadian provinces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The workers' compensation system covers wages and health care costs associated with work-related injuries or illnesses. We explore if dimensions of occupational health and safety vulnerability are associated with differences in reporting work-related injuries to workers' compensation boards (WCBs). METHODS: We examined data from adults reporting physical workplace injuries requiring time off or health care. We explored relationships between exposure to nine hazards, risk from inadequate policies and procedures, inadequate occupational health and safety (OHS) awareness, inadequate empowerment, and reporting to provincial WCBs. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to assess risk from dimensions of workplace vulnerability for not reporting an injury to WCBs. RESULTS: Of 326 participants, 64% did not report injuries to WCBs. Reporting was higher among those with hazardous workplace exposures compared to those without (40% vs 22%, P = .01), lower among those with inadequate policy and procedures and inadequate awareness protections. Inadequate OHS awareness protection was related to not reporting to WCBs in logistic regression models. Women, those working part-time, workers in education, health, and public administration, and non-unionized workers were less likely to report injuries (nonsignificant), while workers with postgraduate educations were significantly less likely to report an injury compared to referent (OR = 3.89, 95% CI: 1.57-9.62). CONCLUSION: A general lack of knowledge about OHS rights and responsibilities was associated with low levels of reporting. This suggests there is a knowledge deficit among some workers, possibly amenable to joint efforts to increase rights and responsibilities related to OHS with the dissemination of information about rights to workers' compensation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".