Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to review the Occupational Safety and Health legislations applied to seafarer and to suggest improvement measures for the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Seafarers Act. The methodology of this study is a historical review of the relationship between the Seafarers Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act through the transitional history of the safety and health legislation. Also it considered whether the Occupational Safety and Health Act is applicable to seafarers subject to the Seafarers Act. In addition, through the analysis of occupational safety and health legislations in the U.K, Canada and Japan, what kind of legislative approach has been taken are surveyed. As a result, since the Occupational Safety and Health Act does not explicitly exclude the application to seafarers subject to the Seafarers Act, there is controversy over the interpretation of the law. Furthermore, the Seafarers Act needs to provide a legal basis for the implementation of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 as amended. and strengthening the safety and health of the cadet in the Seafarers Act. In the long term, the legislation concerning Seafarers Safety and Health Act would be required because there is a legislative limit to strengthen and implement occupational safety and health on board only with partial amendment of the Seafarers Act.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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 it