A comparison of male versus female University of Ontario Institute of Technology students who use electronic or digital devices and technologies with a video display terminal and associated negative health outcomes experienced
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
Aims and Significance: \nElectronic and digital device and technologies use with Video Display Terminals (VDTs) has increased exponentially. There are negative health effects associated with their use. This study compares VDT use between the sexes and assesses the relationship between VDT exposure and associated potential negative health effects. \nMethods: \nA cross-sectional study was employed using self-reported questionnaires to explore the negative health effects associated with VDT use. 278 undergraduate University of Ontario Institute of Technology (University of Ontario Institute of Technology) students in participated in the study of which 65.8% were females (aged between 17-30 years) and 34.2% were males (aged between 18-30 years). \nResults: \nFemale University of Ontario Institute of Technology students reported more pain in the neck/shoulder/hand and eye discomfort and headaches/migraines in comparison to their male counterparts. \nConclusion: \nThis study provide preliminary evidence to suggest that female University of Ontario Institute of Technology students experienced increased negative health effects on exposure to VDTs in comparison to their male counterparts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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