MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020959603 · doi:10.1097/jom.0000000000001870

Disparities in the Deaths of Despair by Occupation, Massachusetts, 2000 to 2015

2020· article· en· W3020959603 on OpenAlexaff
Devan Hawkins, Letitia Davis, Laura Punnett, David Kriebel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsSmiths Detection (Canada)
FundersNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
KeywordsMedicineDemographyMortality rateOccupational safety and healthInjury preventionPoison controlSuicide preventionPsychological interventionEnvironmental healthGerontologySurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore mortality rates and trends according to the occupation of workers who died from the deaths of despair (DoD). METHODS: Death certificates for deaths due to poisonings (including opioid-related overdoses), suicides, and alcoholic liver disease occurring in Massachusetts from 2000 to 2015 were collected and coded according to the occupation of the decedent. Mortality rates and trends in mortality were calculated for each occupation. RESULTS: DoDs increased by more than 50% between 2000 to 2004 and 2011 to 2015. There were substantial differences in mortality rates and trends according to occupation. Blue collar workers were at a particularly elevated risk for DoD and had elevated trends for these deaths, notably: construction and farming, fishing, and forestry workers. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions should be targeted to occupations with elevated mortality rates and trends. Occupational risk factors that may contribute to these disparities should be explored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207