Gender differences in occupational health and safety perceptions: Insights from youth in dual vocational training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• All students recognized OHS as an important component of their training. • All students had limited ability to identify hazards and dangerous tasks. • Women exhibited a concerning uncertainty about hazards in their traineeships, which were in different trades than men. • Many students had already experienced occupational injuries, highlighting the need for early OHS prevention. • Gender-specific challenges underscore the importance of adapting OHS programs to diverse occupational contexts. While occupational health and safety (OHS) education is important for all new workers, it appears critical for youth in dual vocational training programs. To develop prevention tools adapted to their situation, the first stage of an action-research study was to question their perceptions and experiences of OHS. This study examines the perceptions of OHS among young students with disabilities enrolled in the Work-Oriented Training Path (WOTP) in Québec. A mixed-methods study based on questionnaires given to 131 (38 women, 93 men) WOTP students and Ministry documents. Descriptive and comparative quantitative analyses were conducted with a qualitative analysis of open-ended questions and documents. A gender-sensitive analysis was carried out since it is a recognized influencing factor to consider in OHS. Men and women worked in different environments (p = 0.002). Men seem to be more aware of the presence of hazards (yes = 79.6 %) than women (yes = 50 %) (p = 0.001), and collectively named 15 risk categories, compared to 9 for women. A modest proportion of men (yes = 44.1 %) and women (yes = 31.6 %) reported having received OHS training in their traineeship. Men had a slightly less marked interest in OHS (p = 0.047). A large proportion of students reported having experienced an occupational injury (43.5 %). Targeted interventions are needed to ensure safe learning environments and equitable OHS training for youth with disabilities. Women might be confronted with unrecognized or invisible hazards, and all could benefit from a training that addresses those.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".