MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400302277 · doi:10.1080/10803548.2024.2366634

Occupational health and safety portrait of lobster fishers from a St. Lawrence Gulf community

2024· article· en· W4400302277 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mathieu Tremblay, Dave A. Bergeron, Andrée‐Anne Parent, Jérôme Pelletier, Daniel Paré, Martin Lavallière

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Safety and Hygiene
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à ChicoutimiUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortraitOccupational safety and healthFisheryEngineeringGeographyPolitical scienceBiologyArchaeologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lobstering industry workers are known to have poor overall health and low safety records, but there is still a gap in information concerning Canadian lobster fishers. This study aimed to report occupational health and safety characteristics of an Atlantic Canada community of lobster fishers and to assess differences between captains and deckhands. Twenty-eight participants (10 captains, 18 deckhands) were questioned and self-reported on lifestyle, general health status, work-related musculoskeletal disorders and traumatic injuries. The data collected reveal both groups' high prevalence of cardiometabolic and musculoskeletal health issues. Captains reported more occupational exposition and health issues, and showed poorer lifestyle habits than deckhands. Fishers reported potential solutions to reduce occupational risks, presented as three types: lifestyle, working behaviours and leadership. This study evaluated a community of Canadian lobster fishers regarding their occupational health and safety. Potential avenues for mitigating occupational risk specific to this community will nurture future implementation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Occupational Safety and ErgonomicsSame topicFood Safety and HygieneFrench-language works237,207