Gender and occupational allergy: Report from the task force of the EAACI Environmental and Occupational Allergy Interest Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women's work has traditionally been considered less hazardous to health in comparison with men's work. The increased women's participation in the workforce has led to an increased attention to women's working conditions. Women and men are unequally represented in individual professions or sectors (horizontal segregation), with women also under-represented in leadership positions (vertical segregation). The selection of specific occupations can result in differences between types and levels of occupational exposures among women and men and can affect prevalence of occupational allergy. Gender distribution of work-related asthma appears to vary across countries without clear global difference. Occupational rhinitis tends to be higher in women, although is not clear if this is related to a sex/gender effect or to differences in work exposure. Women are more likely to have occupational contact dermatitis, mainly due to wet work. No clear effects of gender on rates of hypersensitivity pneumonitis have been shown. Besides variation in exposures, physical and physiological characteristics, different behaviours and health consciousness have an impact on the occupational health hazards of women and men. Occupational allergy health promotion strategies need to consider approaches for women and men adjusted by gender, and legislative actions similarly could be implemented in a more gender-sensitive way.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".