Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs regarding crab asthma in four communities of Newfoundland and Labrador
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. This study was conducted to learn from snow crab plants workers and others involved in the industry their knowledge and beliefs of health issues and potential solutions. \nStudy design. This is a survey in four communities with different crab plant designs in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. \nMethods. At the start of a meeting to discuss crab asthma participants were requested to complete the questionnaire. \nResults. 65% of 196 participants believed there were health problems associated with crab plants. 85% have heard of crab asthma. Almost 80% identified correctly the major symptoms of crab asthma as difficulty breathing, chest tightness and cough. Only 74% of workers did not know that workers with crab asthma were eligible for workers’ compensation. 55% of those surveyed had heard of crab asthma from crab plant workers and only 26 % from their doctor or nurse. If they had breathing problems, 73 % would see their local doctor, and 51% a specialist and 51% their nurse. Conclusion. The majority of participants believed that there were health problems associated with crab plants. The majority of crab plant workers could identify symptoms of crab asthma correctly. Many do not know that those with crab asthma can obtain workers’ compensation. Most of them learn of crab asthma from other workers but would seek treatment from their doctor.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it