MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300690747 · doi:10.1097/jom.0000000000002708

Fatal Injuries in the Health Care and Social Assistance Industry, Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 2011 to 2019

2022· article· en· W4300690747 on OpenAlexaff
Devan Hawkins, Alma Luana Chavarria

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsSmiths Detection (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupational safety and healthCensusEnvironmental healthInjury preventionMedicinePoison controlSuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsOccupational medicineHealth careMedical emergencyOccupational exposurePopulationPolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the characteristics of workers in the health care and social assistance industry who experience fatal occupation injuries and the nature of these injuries. METHODS: Fatal occupational injury rates were calculated for workers in the health and social assistance industry according to age, sex, race ethnicity, industry, and year. RESULTS: There were 1224 fatalities among workers in the health care and social assistance industry, resulting in a rate of 6.7 fatalities per 1,000,000 worker-years. The rate of fatal injuries was highest among older workers, men, and Black and White workers. The highest number of fatal injuries was transportation and violent incidents. The highest mortality rates were in the vocational rehabilitation services industry. CONCLUSIONS: These findings can be useful for identifying methods for intervening and preventing fatal injuries among workers in the health care and social assistance industry.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207