Exploring the Spectrum of Labour/Management Participation Within Safety Regimes: Occupational Health and Safety in Ontario (Canada), Sweden and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly, workers are demanding greater input into working conditions. Nowhere in the management/labour dynamic is this more evident than in the area of occupational health and safety, but standards vary significantly across the globe. The occupational health and safety regimes in Ontario, Canada, Sweden and the United States have been born out of radically different national, political and labour landscapes. This paper aims to describe how these competing visions have manifested themselves within their respective work environments and their effect upon the labour/management relationship. A unique feature of this paper is the utilization of the author’s personal professional experience within the occupational health and safety enforcement mechanism in Ontario, Canada. The personal anecdotal information informs the discussion of the competing enforcement mechanisms being employed in the comparator jurisdictions. Other areas of comparison include the varying degrees of responsibilities of workplace stakeholders, non-disciplinary mechanisms in the use and effects of organized labour upon the regimes. The unique external influence of European Union initiatives on Sweden’s regime is also discussed. Ultimately, the work is a discussion of workplace power dynamics within three very different safety regimes and was written with an eye to stimulating discussion in the ongoing dialogue on workplace safety.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".