The Impact of Adverse Employment and Working Conditions on the Risk of Workplace Injury in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Employment standards (ES) include having a regular payday, regular breaks, the right to paid sick or vacation time, and paid wages. Inadequate ES contribute to the labour market vulnerability of workers; however, they are not typically considered to be risk factors for workplace injury. In a sample of Canadian workers, we examine the risk of injury associated with inadequate ES, independent of, and combined with inadequate workplace protections from workplace hazards. Data from 2,803 adults working 15 hours or more/week in workplaces with at least five employees were analysed. We explored associations between exposure to workplace hazards with inadequate protections [termed occupational health and safety (OHS) vulnerability] and inadequate ES on workplace injury (physical or mental injury; injury requiring time off). Additive interaction models were used to examine the independent and combined effects of these exposures. Occupational health and safety vulnerability and inadequate ES were independently associated with increased injury outcomes. Adjusted models showed an additive relationship for all injury outcomes between OHS vulnerability and inadequate ES. Statistically significant superadditive relationships were observed for physical injury risk with policy and procedure vulnerability plus inadequate ES [synergy index (S) 1.50, 95% CI: 1.13–2.00] and for overall OHS vulnerability plus inadequate ES (S 1.53, 95% CI: 1.16–2.02), suggesting a combined effect greater than independent effects. Occupational health and safety vulnerability and inadequate ES are independently associated with workplace injury. For certain injury outcomes, the combined effect of OHS vulnerability and inadequate ES is greater than the independent effects of each individual exposure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".