MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400075255 · doi:10.1093/annweh/wxae035.068

167 Minds in Mines- Assessing the psychological wellbeing of mining industry workers in Ontario Canada

2024· article· en· W4400075255 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michel Larivière, Dr Zsuzsanna Kerekes, William Nesbitt

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Work Exposures and Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsIamgold (Canada)Laurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMining industryEnvironmental healthMedicineEngineeringMining engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The following presentation describes the development of the mental health strategy with the integration of a large-scale survey and the results from the Mining Mental Health project in Ontario, Canada. This 5-year research effort included a large-scale survey of the mental health and wellbeing of mining workers (N= 2,224 participants) using several clinical instruments. The research also integrated qualitative results from individual interviews and focus group meetings. The study represents the first of its kind in the mining industry and results confirmed the need for such research. The prevalence of mental health indicators such as depression, suicidality, PTSD, fatigue, burnout, and substance abuse will be discussed during this presentation as well as their correlates. The predictors of workplace absenteeism and the barriers of a successful return to work will be illustrated. The presentation intends to offer guidance on how to develop a mental health strategy from a systems perspective in the mining industry and involve multiple stakeholders in research of this kind. Finally, it will provide suggestions on potential intervention strategies for mining worker health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.280
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Work Exposures and HealthSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207