MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084173852 · doi:10.1177/2516043520946650

Occupational risk prevention, education and support in black, Asian and ethnic minority health worker in the COVID-19 pandemic

2020· article· en· W3084173852 on OpenAlexaff
N. H. MORRIS, Sohier Elneil, David L. Morris, Peter Ellis, Sabaratnam Arulkumaran

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Patient Safety and Risk Management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupGovernment (linguistics)PandemicHealth careDiseaseMedicinePersonal protective equipmentCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)BusinessPolitical scienceLawPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The onset of the COVID-19 in the UK has resulted in an inordinate amount of deaths affecting Black, Asian and Ethnic Minority (BAME) healthcare workers. The occupational risk to this group is thought to be a contributory factor, but other factors include race, genetics, medical co-morbidities, socio-economic status, and access to personal protection equipment. Why COVID-19 appears to be more deadly in BAME members remains unknown, but the UK government is investigating this now. It does appear that certain factors may worsen the disease process in BAME members, but which ones are pertinent to prevention remain to be determined, until a vaccine is available. Thus, the onus should rest on risk prevention, education, and support for all. Some of the safety strategies that may be instituted to help guide those in the workplace include education, treating potential therapeutic targets and ensuring protection in the working environment. The consideration of a compensation scheme, for families of healthcare workers that have suffered because of COVID-19, would go some way to support the recovery process.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Patient Safety and Risk ManagementSame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207