MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3209675834 · doi:10.1136/oem-2021-epi.105

O-483 Geographic variation in work disability duration in 5 Canadian workers’ compensation jurisdictions

2021· article· en· W3209675834 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kimberly Sharpe, Kimberlyn McGrail, Chris McLeod, Cameron Mustard

Bibliographic record

VenueOral Presentations · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuration (music)JurisdictionDemographyMedicineGeographic variationWork (physics)Occupational safety and healthPhysical therapyEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Prior research has focused on individual or employer-level factors that influence work disability duration. A smaller number of studies identified differences in work disability duration by province or state and the urban-rural spectrum. Variations may also occur across smaller units of geography due to place-based factors, such as labour market characteristics and healthcare access, that play an important role in work disability duration. Objectives The purpose of this study is to describe geographic variation in work disability duration within five work disability jurisdictions in Canada and examine if variation differs by injury type and jurisdiction. Methods Using Canadian workers’ compensation data, we examined variability in disability days by calculating the coefficient of variations (CVs) across standardized units of geography in cohorts of workers with low back, shoulder and knee injuries. Results Preliminary results suggest shoulder injuries had the longest disability duration with a mean of 50.10 days (SD 67.94), followed by knee injuries with a mean of 44.77 days (SD 62.03). Low back injuries had the shortest duration with a mean of 27.31 days (SD 45.49). There were different patterns of regional variation within jurisdictions. In three jurisdictions, British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario, higher CV values were observed for shoulder injuries (10.98, 12.03 and 15.65 respectively) and lower CVs observed for knee injuries (6.34, 9.77, 14.19 respectively). In contrast, in Alberta and Saskatchewan CVs were lower for shoulder injuries (4.47 and 4.92 respectively) and higher for low back injuries in Alberta (CV=8.27) and knee injuries in Saskatchewan (CV=13.49). Conclusion Findings suggest that variation across regions differs by jurisdiction and injury cohorts. This variation may reflect differences in approaches to treatment for specific injuries across jurisdictions. Further analysis will examine the association between work disability duration and workers’ compensation healthcare utilization and spending in these cohorts.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 venueOral Presentations→Same topicOccupational Health and Safety Research→French-language works237,207→