MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3209110048 · doi:10.1136/oem-2021-epi.392

RF-182 Adolescent trainees with learning disabilities on occupational health and safety: perception of risks and gender differences

2021· article· en· W3209110048 on OpenAlexaffabout
Myriam Bérubé, Marie Laberge, Aurélie Tondoux

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternshipContext (archaeology)Medical educationPsychologyRecreationOccupational safety and healthAcknowledgementPerceptionApplied psychologyMedicineComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Adolescents with learning disabilities are vulnerable in terms of occupational health and safety (OHS). The Quebec Work-Oriented Training Path (WOTP) prepares them for the job market by offering pre-employment internships. Those are often typically feminine or masculine, and attract students according to their gender stereotypes. This segregation implies different OHS risks for women or men, who have chosen different environments. Considering this complex context, a research team is developing digital tools to improve the OHS management in the WOTP. Objectives The first step is to identify what students currently understand about OHS, the risks present in their internships, and how gender influence these elements. Methods A short answer questionnaire addressing these topics was completed by 131 WOTP students (38 girls and 93 boys). Results The three most popular work environments were garages (tire installer, 17 boys), retail stores (stock handler, 21 boys, 9 girls) and restaurants (fast-food counter attendant and cook’s helper, 17 boys, 6 girls). More than 40% of the girls are in typically female occupations: hair salon assistant (7), assistant childcare educator (5), grooming assistant (3) and recreation assistant (1). When asked if they perceived risks in their internships, 50% of girls and 80% of boys say yes. All girls say they consider OHS important or very important, while 13% of boys are indifferent or consider it not very important. Concerning the OHS training received at the workplace, 38% of the girls and 50% of the boys stated that they had received some. Conclusion These preliminary results suggest that girls and boys are not exposed to the same environments nor the same risks. The situation seems inequitable in terms of prevention and suboptimal for all, since a large proportion reported not having an OHS training. These shortcomings should be considered in the development of new tools.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.264
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOccupational Health and Safety Research→French-language works237,207→