Pilot study: Occupational and public health consequences of elevated temperatures in restaurant kitchens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restaurant kitchens are relatively warm and can be made even warmer when the outdoor temperature is excessive. Hot indoor conditions can lead to workers experiencing health effects such as heat stress as well as negatively impact food storage and food cooling. This study’s objective was to simultaneously identify potential occupational health and public health effects inside restaurant kitchens due to warm conditions. Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) measurements were collected and the results were compared to the corresponding Threshold Limit Value and Action Limit. Internal temperatures of refrigerators and freezers were gathered and observations were made of any food being held inside the kitchen. Eight premises in the Greater Toronto Area were included in this study. Five of the sites had average WBGT values at or above the Action Limit, which is when heat stress management programs are recommended. Most sites had refrigerators operating over the required 4°C and three sites had freezers operating above the requisite −18°C. Food was observed to be held at temperatures that can promote bacterial growth in 50% of the sites. This study found that hot kitchen environments could result in both heat stress conditions as well as compromise cold food storage and food holding.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".