P-438 Unmasking the Truth: A longitudinal study examining workplace protective strategies, working arrangements, and their impact on workers’ health, safety and productivity in Newfoundland and Labrador dur
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Introduction</h3> Under federal and provincial legislations, employers across Canada have a responsibility to reasonably protect the health and safety of their workforce. The COVID-19 pandemic has created many challenges for employers to meet these responsibilities. Employers have been particularly hindered in their efforts to protect their workers due to changing understandings of COVID-19 risks over time. Knowledge of effective public health measures is continuously evolving, with new evidence emerging almost daily. Workplace-led strategies have been designed and implemented to specifically protect workers from exposure to the COVID-19 virus. What we don’t know is the unintended long-term consequences these workplace protection measures may be having on workers’ health and ability to work safely during the pandemic. <h3>Objectives</h3> To examine the influences of geographical region, sex and gender, industry, occupation, and perceptions of worker autonomy on the relationship between workplace-led strategies to protect workers from exposure to COVID-19 on measures of worker health safety and productivity. <h3>Methods</h3> Using a longitudinal survey with a purposive sampling of Newfoundland and Labrador workers at regular intervals over a 12-month period, data were collected across six domains: participant demographics, pandemic-specific workplace policies and practices, working environment (including remote and on-campus work), psychosocial working conditions, physical health and mental health. <h3>Results</h3> Findings from the baseline, 3 month and 6-month follow-up surveys will be presented. Preliminary results from this work highlight the challenges faced by workers under remote and standard work arrangements and the relationship among these working conditions and impacts on worker health, safety and productivity during the changing nature of work throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. <h3>Conclusion</h3> The outcomes from our research will provide new knowledge through the collection of stakeholder perspectives about how current workplace strategies to prevent the spread of COVID-19 may be having unintentional consequences on worker health and safety.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".