P-18 Sex and gender differences in occupational hazard exposures: A scoping review of literature from the last 10 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Comparative research on sex and/or gender differences in occupational hazard exposures is necessary for effective work injury and illness prevention strategies that integrate individual and social context in their design, especially as women make up half of the labour force in high-income countries. Objective To summarize the peer-reviewed literature on exposure differences to occupational hazards between men and women, across occupations and within the same occupation. Methods A scoping review was conducted on studies from 2009 to 2019, from 8 databases. Studies were required to quantify the exposure of men and women to an occupational hazard. The analysis of hazard exposure differences within the same occupations was based on whether studies stratified or matched their results by occupation for men and women, or mentioned in the article. Studies were not limited by language or study design. Results Fifty-eight studies met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 30 studies were on physical hazards, 38 studies on psychosocial hazards, 5 studies on biological hazards, and 17 studies on chemical hazards. The majority of studies reported that men were exposed to noise, vibration, radiation, physical work, biomechanical and chemical hazards; while women were exposed to wet work, bullying and discrimination, work stress, and biological agents. Within the same occupations, men were more likely to be exposed to physical hazards, with the exception of women in healthcare occupations and prolonged standing exposure. Women compared to men in the same occupations were more likely to experience harassment, while men compared to women in the same occupations reported higher stress. Men reported more exposure to hazardous chemicals in the same occupations as women. Conclusions Men and women have different exposures to occupational hazards, and these differences are not solely due to the gendered distribution of the labour foce by occupation. Future research is needed to explain the reasons for sex/gender inequalities and differences in exposures within the same occupations.
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 | 0.009 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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.
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".