Safety representatives' views on their interaction with workers in a context of unequal power relations: An exploratory qualitative study in Barcelona (Spain)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The interaction between workers and safety representatives (SRs), a factor that determines SRs' effectiveness, is an unexplored issue within occupational health research. METHODS: We undertook a qualitative exploratory interpretative-descriptive study by means of semi-structured interviews with SRs from Barcelona (Spain) to analyze the SRs' perspective on the interaction with workers and its determinants RESULTS: SRs' interaction with workers is mainly limited to information processes and to identifying occupational hazards. Prominent factors determining this interaction are associated with the way SRs understand and carry out their role, the firm sector and size, and workers' fear of dismissal, exacerbated by changes in the labor market and the current economic crisis. CONCLUSIONS: Interaction with workers is influenced by a more prevalent technical-legal view of the SRs' role and by unequal power relations between workers and management. Poor interaction with workers might lead to decreasing SRs' effectiveness.
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 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".