Safety Culture Indicators - For Improvement Not Assessment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This paper presents the findings of an evidence-based review of safety culture indicators and their applicability to the railway industry. Safety culture continues to be a major area of interest for railway companies in many countries. Much of the research focus has been on the development and evaluation of assessment methodologies. More recently many railway regulators have produced guidance on safety culture (e.g., EU Railway Safety Agency, Transport Canada). Some regulators are also incorporating safety culture into their oversight activities. For example, in the UK the Office of Road and Rail includes culture in its RM3 process and in the USA the Federal Railroad Administration has conducted a supplemental safety audit of Norfolk Southern to assess its overall safety culture. There is now an interest from both companies and regulators to use safety culture indicators. To identify potential safety culture indicators, an environmental scan was conducted to identify existing safety culture indicators. We identified 154 safety culture indicators from a range of sources (e.g., RM3, Railway Association of Canada, Canada Energy Regulator). These indicators varied widely in how they were developed, their intended purpose, and their target industry. The second phase of research involved interviewing eight subject matter experts (SMEs) to create an evidenced-based framework for evaluating the indicators. We used thematic analysis to identify three criteria of importance. Firstly, indicators need to be related to safety culture, secondly, practical/collectable, and thirdly they need clear assessment criteria. Using these criteria, we refined the original list of indicators in two phases by getting SMEs to rate the indicators. Two separate groups of six SMEs rated the indicators. The indicators that had low scores on these criteria were removed. We retained 27 indicators after two independent rounds of assessment. This research reveals that many safety culture indicators have been created with limited or no evaluation. The fact that we only retained 27, questions the quality of many of these indicators. These indicators can only provide limited insight into safety culture and are not a replacement for a safety culture assessment, but they may assist organizations in identifying improvement opportunities. This paper outlines potential ways that the indicators could be used in practice, resources required, data collection and interpretation strategies. The paper concludes by outlining the limitations of the research and potential future directions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».