MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194689542 · doi:10.1289/isee.2021.p-133

Occupational Exposure of Noise and Its Health Impacts among Fish Harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador

2021· article· en· W3194689542 on OpenAlexaffabout
Om Prakash Yadav, Desai Shan, Atanu Sarkar, Veeresh Gadag

Bibliographic record

VenueISEE Conference Abstracts · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnnoyanceTinnitusHearing lossNoise (video)Occupational safety and healthNoise-induced hearing lossEnvironmental healthFish <Actinopterygii>MedicinePerceptionAudiologyNoise exposurePsychologyFisheryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The fishery is considered one of the most hazardous occupations. Noise exposure is a highly prevalent risk among fish harvesters causing significant occupational health issues. Occupational noise exposure can result in auditory health problems such as Noise-Induced Hearing Loss and non-auditory health problems, including annoyance, hypertension, sleep disturbance, cognitive impairment, affecting the overall quality of life. This study explores the perception of noise exposure and highlights self-reported hearing loss among fish harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted (2021) among NL fish harvesters. As the study is exploratory, the maximum number of fish harvesters working in NL was approached. The study tool was developed and validated by Suzanne C Purdy and Warwick Williams (2002). It consists of 20-item questions including perceived benefits, barriers, self-efficacy, attitude, and susceptibility towards noise and hearing loss. Additional, 16-item questions related to socio-demographic information, job profile, vessel characteristics, and self-reported hearing loss were included. RESULTS:The study is still ongoing. The preliminary results are based on the data of 78 survey participants. About 54.84 and 68% of participants agreed that work would be less stressful if it is quieter and noise has bad effects on their health other than hearing. The majority (80%) of participants felt that vessel owners are not interested in occupational health and safety. Nearly 52 and 84% disagreed that reducing noise at work and making quieter equipment is difficult. Around 55, 60% had self-reported tinnitus and hearing difficulty. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, noise is identified as a significant health risk and the leading cause of hearing loss among fish harvesters. Further quantitative research with a larger sample size and broader geographical area can help to identify other health conditions, and quantitative research can explore the existing barriers and challenges of onboard noise prevention. KEYWORDS: Occupational exposures, Occupational epidemiology

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISEE Conference AbstractsSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207