Employment Precarity and Increased Risk of Hazardous Occupational Exposures Among Residents of High Socioeconomic Hardship Neighborhoods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While there is evidence that workers in nonstandard employment arrangements are disproportionately exposed to recognized occupational hazards, existing studies have not comprehensively examined associations between employment precarity and exposure to occupational hazards for these workers in the USA. The aim of this study was to examine relationships between employment precarity and occupational hazards in two contiguous high socio-economic hardship neighborhoods in Chicago. METHODS: Using a community-based participatory research approach, community researchers administered a community-developed survey to 489 residents of Greater Lawndale who reported current or recent employment in a job that met at least one characteristic of precarious employment (e.g. unpredictable schedule, insecure work, no living wage/benefits). Employment precarity was calculated using a modified version of the Employment Precarity Index (EPI) developed by the Poverty and Employment Precarity in Southern Ontario group. We modeled the association between employment precarity and occupational exposures using logistic regression models. RESULTS: We identified a high prevalence of precarious employment in this sample, as well as a high prevalence of self-reported exposure to recognized occupational hazards. Increases in relative employment precarity were significantly associated with self-reported exposure to chemical and biological hazards, physical hazards, and slip, trip, strike, fall, trap or crush hazards at work. CONCLUSIONS: Results highlight the importance of using community research approaches and robust measures of employment characteristics, such as the EPI, to evaluate associations between employment precarity and hazardous exposures. These results suggest that variability in employment situations and resultant relative employment precarity are important predictors of exposure to recognized occupational hazards. Findings also suggest that health inequities observed among precariously employed workers may be partly explained by increased risk for exposure to occupational hazards, which has implications for community health and should be investigated in future longitudinal research.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".