O-124 Cannabis use and the risk of workplace injury: findings from a longitudinal study of Canadian workers
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
<h3>Introduction</h3> Social and legislative changes in cannabis use worldwide have led to renewed interest in the potential impacts of cannabis use on occupational safety. Previous studies examining the relationship between cannabis use and workplace injury have yielded mixed findings, likely due to methodological shortcomings, including cross-sectional study designs and broad measures of exposure that lack consideration for timing of use. Using data from a national longitudinal study of Canadian workers, the objective was to examine the relationship between cannabis use, including workplace use, and the risk of workplace injury. <h3>Materials and Methods</h3> Surveys were conducted yearly from 2018 to 2020. Two exposures were examined: 1) general cannabis use (never, former, past-year) and past-year workplace cannabis use (no use, non-workplace use, workplace use), with workplace use referring to use two hours before work, use during work and/or use during breaks. The outcome was past-year workplace injury (yes/no). Workers participating in adjacent surveys were included in analyses (n=2,745). Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated between each exposure and workplace injury, using exposures measured at the survey immediately preceding the outcome. Models were adjusted for various sociodemographic, health, and work variables. <h3>Results</h3> When examining general cannabis use, compared to never use, no relationship was seen for former use (RR 1.09, 95%CI 0.84–1.42), while past-year use was associated with a 30% increased risk of workplace injury (95%CI 0.99 -1.72). When examining workplace cannabis use, compared to no past-year use, there was no difference in risk of workplace injury for past-year non-workplace use (RR 1.11, 95%CI 0.87–1.41). However, workers reporting past-year workplace use were at an almost two-fold increased risk of experiencing a workplace injury (RR 1.86, 95%CI 1.30–2.66). <h3>Conclusions</h3> It is important to distinguish non-workplace and workplace use when considering workplace safety impacts of cannabis use.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it