P-295 Perception of occupational exposure of noise and its impacts on fish harvesters’ health in Newfoundland and Labrador: A mixed-method study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Noise exposure is a significant concern for fish harvesters, as it can cause serious health problems. Occupational noise exposure can result in hearing loss and non-auditory health issues such as annoyance, asthma, insomnia, cognitive disability, and diminished quality of life and well-being. Objectives The aim of this study is to determine how fish harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador perceive noise risk and to examine their experiences with noise exposure, noise-related health problems, and barriers and challenges associated with preventing hearing loss. Methods A mixed-methods study was conducted among NL fish harvesters. The study comprises an online questionnaire and telephone interviews. Survey tool consist of a 37-item questionnaire included noise risk perception and self-reported hearing loss questions. A semi-structured interview guide was developed to elicit information about fish harvesters’ experiences with noise exposure and related health issues, as well as the obstacles and challenges associated with noise reduction and hearing loss prevention. Results The survey results represents that an average noise risk awareness score of 2.3 to 2.9 out of 5 based on perceived benefits, barriers, and self-efficacy reflects that NL fish harvesters have a relatively positive attitude toward noise reduction and hearing loss prevention. Similarly, the noise-related perceived attitude and susceptibility score (3.9 to 4.5) shows that harvesters disliked the high level of noise and indicated a high risk of hearing loss. Around 62% of participants reported having hearing problems. Most participants acknowledged their workplace is noisy. There was a conflict between onboard safety and wellbeing. Conclusions Harvesters stop wearing hearing protectors on a daily basis for safety reasons. Participants emphasized the importance of increasing education and awareness, training, and the use of specialized equipment in order to minimize noise exposure. Regulating onboard noise levels is necessary to avoid noise-related health problems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".