Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workers' compensation in Canada is a legislated system of social insurance funded by assessments levied upon employers. There are 13 established workers' compensation board (WCB) systems that have regional jurisdiction and responsibility for administering and adjudicating compensation for the injured worker. Disability awards for certain injuries are determined by statute; others are determined using an acceptable reference or impairment schedule, similar to the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.On August 22, 1960, Dr D. E. Bell presented to the Association of Workmens' Compensation Boards of Canada (WCB) an impairment rating schedule that was to “represent the loss of earning capacity” and fulfill the spirit of workers' compensation. Dr Bell's schedule has served as the basis for many of the Canadian WCB Primary Rating Schedules.Most jurisdictions refer to the Guides when the primary schedule is inadequate. Table 1 (below) lists the currentx primary and secondary schedules for assessment of impairment in Canada. In Dr Bell's schedule, enhancement of rating was recommended in multiple injuries where parts of the body serving identical functions were involved (e.g., both arms, both legs or both eyes). Hand dominance is not routinely considered to affect impairment.Differences in ratings between Dr Bell's and the Guides are illustrated in Table 2. The whole-person impairments in Dr Bell's tables are generally higher, particularly for whole-leg amputation. There is no consistent process for combining impairments. The Guides is used principally in only Yukon and Prince Edward Island, and is also used for impairment estimations of more complicated injuries in all regions but Quebec.
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 | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.019 |
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".