MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W426534832

Understanding the Limitations of Employer Prevention Programs in Transnational Settings: A Case Study of Women Workers in Canadian-Owned Maquiladoras in Honduras

2014· dissertation· en· W426534832 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karen Spring

Bibliographic record

VenueSummit (Simon Fraser University) · 2014
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMigrant workersPolitical scienceBusinessDemographic economicsEconomic growthPsychologySocioeconomicsSociologyEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the failure of current studies of ergonomics programs in transnational factories in Honduras to adequately address the issue of prevention, this study examines how the production process in Canadian-owned factories operating in Honduras mitigate against primary and secondary prevention measures. Using a feminist lens and drawing on grounded theory, this study is based on interviews with seven Honduran women workers suffering from work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) and seven key informants knowledgeable about women’s health experiences in maquiladoras. The key themes discussed are: failure or inadequacy of primary prevention; production quotas as a physical and psychological workplace hazard; treatment from company management; injured workers remaining on the assembly line; and ways of facilitating immediate and systematic changes to reduce exposure to occupational hazards in the maquiladoras. The study found that ergonomic programs have failed to adequately address the risk factors and processes that lead to the development of WMSDs.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0240.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSummit (Simon Fraser University)→Same topicEmployment and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→