Barriers to Occupational Health and Safety Legal Services During Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to identify the barriers to accessing legal services related to occupational health and safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The study applied qualitative research methods, including in-depth interviews with 12 practicing lawyers in Nepal regarding their experience with hundreds of clients. The data was analysed using a thematic analysis approach. Results: The study identified key themes that characterise workers' experiences in accessing occupational health and safety (OHS) legal services, as viewed by legal practitioners. These themes included limited knowledge about OHS legal service provision and procedures; perceived high cost of legal services; delay and uncertainty in furnishing justice; intent to protect one's job, oneself, and family; authority of lawyers and health workers; the influence of family members, employer and significant others; hiding OHS problems due to potential stigmatisation, penalisation and threat; and COVID-19 pandemic-associated lockdown and travel restrictions. Conclusions: The study's findings underscore the practical challenges faced by workers in accessing OHS legal services during the pandemic. Despite the legal provisions in the current constitution, acts, and rules, the access of marginalised populations like workers to OHS services is challenged. This highlights the need for specific attention and focused interventions to avail of OHS legal services during the pandemic. The importance of targeted actions in this area cannot be overstated. The findings of this study are significant as they would serve to formulate and execute important policy guidelines to materialise the existing legal provisions on OHS, and will also serve as the basis for further studies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".