MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211147102 · doi:10.1136/oem-2021-epi.272

P-330 Age differences in return-to-work following injury: Understanding the role of age across longitudinal follow-up

2021· article· en· W3211147102 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Fan, Monique A. M. Gignac, Anne Harris, Peter Smith

Bibliographic record

VenuePoster presentations · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialPsychologyGerontologySuccessful agingAssociation (psychology)DemographyDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Introduction</h3> Older age tends to be associated with longer time to return-to-work (RTW) following a workplace injury and multiple recurrences of work absence following an initial RTW attempt. However, few studies have examined the underlying factors that are responsible for these differences. <h3>Objectives</h3> To examine the overall association between age and return-to-work (RTW), understand the extent to which functional, psychosocial, organizational, life-stage related factors indirectly explain these associations, and examine whether there is a remaining direct proportion not mediated by these factors. <h3>Methods</h3> We used survey data from a prospective cohort of injured workers in Victoria, Australia. Participants were recruited during the 2014 to 2015 period from monthly samples of claimants identified by the compensation system. Path models examined the relationship between age and RTW, and the proportion mediated via functional, psychosocial, organizational, life-stage related factors. <h3>Results</h3> Older age was associated with non-RTW, although the pattern was not observed consistently across follow-up surveys. A proportion of the overall relationship between age and non-RTW was explained by functional and life-stage factors and RTW status at previous time points. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Findings underscore the importance of moving beyond age measured only in chronological years, towards more complex conceptual and analytical models that recognize age as a multidimensional construct.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoster presentationsSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207