Outdoor worker knowledge of ticks and Lyme disease in Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Lyme disease is a well-known occupational risk across North America caused by exposure to Borrelia burgdorferi via blacklegged ticks (Ixodes scapularis). As the geographic range of B. burgdorferi advances with the increasing distribution of blacklegged ticks, more outdoor workers are at risk of contracting Lyme disease. In this study, we examined the demography and personal perceptions of outdoor workers within one framework to better determine the overall risk for those working outdoors. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed outdoor worker knowledge of ticks and of behaviours that can prevent tick bites and Lyme disease. We then compared these risk perceptions of individuals across age, sex, education, and industry, as well as time spent outdoors. We tested the hypothesis that the risk perception of an individual and their knowledge of Lyme disease transmission was dependent on their demographics, experience in their job, and the region in which they spend time outdoors. We estimated a knowledge-based risk score based on individuals' answers to a questionnaire on risk perception given to voluntary participants who work outdoors. Those who had higher risk scores were more at risk. We found that knowledge-based risk scores were correlated with geographic risk levels and with the number of hours per day spent outdoors. Those who work longer hours and who work in areas with mid-level risk had higher risk scores. Those who spend more time outdoors recreationally had lower risk scores. CONCLUSIONS: Further examination and acknowledgment of the reasoning behind why these factors are affecting workers' risks must be considered to recognize that it is not necessarily demographics or geographically high-risk areas that affect an individual's risk. Workers' knowledge of these risks is affected by several variables that should be taken into consideration when implementing safety measures and awareness programs.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".