The influence of perception of function on work status in individuals who sustain a work-related upper extremity musculoskeletal injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this thesis is to describe demographic, vocational, functional, medical, psychosocial and workplace characteristics of Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) claimants, who sustain an upper extremity injury, in order to identify patterns and determine if a worker's perceived level of function affects their work status. This study used a cross-sectional design of one-hundred and six (n = 106) consecutive individuals who met the inclusion criteria. Workers were interviewed by telephone at approximately six-weeks post-accident. The primary measures included; a clinical question regarding self perception of function, the Disability Arm Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (DASH), select questions from the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ and open-ended questions regarding the subjects' perception of their ability to work. A subset of the study sample (n = 32) participated in a six-month follow-up interview repeating the primary measures. As hypothesized, an individual's perception of their function is related to their work status (p
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".