After the dust settles: a qualitative study of underground workers exposed to an aluminum dust prophylaxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From 1943 to 1980, some underground gold and uranium workers in Ontario were required to \ninhale aluminum powder, up to approximately 30 minutes daily, for silicosis prevention. \nThis qualitative descriptive study explored the perceived impact of exposed workers to the \naluminum powder. Sixteen respondents from Northeastern Ontario participated in interviews \nwhich were transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically. \nThemes that were constructed on a personal impact level included: 1) compulsory exposure, 2) \nhesitancy to complain, 3) feelings of betrayal, and 4) concern about health impact and dying. \nThemes on an organizational impact level included: 1) confidence and trust in company, 2) lack \nof knowledge, and 3) need for compensation and formal apology. \nWorkers’ perceived that their long-term health was impacted by exposure on a personal and \norganizational level. The latest information from this study on McIntyre powder will enhance the \nknowledge within the occupational health and safety system.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".