“There are risks to be taken and some just push it too far”: how farmers perceive quad‐bike incident risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively explore how farmers perceive personal risk of an occupational quad-bike incident and develop a model of the factors that modify this perception. METHODS: Grounded theory methods were used to inform data collection and analysis. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with eight New Zealand livestock farmers. Interviews were inductively analysed to derive categories that helped explain the processes involved in quad-bike incident risk perception. RESULTS: Farmers perceived personal risk of experiencing a quad-bike incident could be modelled on a sliding scale from low to high. Four core categories encapsulated risk perception: the impact of previous quad-bike incidents; personal attributes; getting the job done; and being familiar with the performance of the quad bike, the terrain and task(s) being undertaken. An exploratory model was developed to elucidate the temporal gap between farmers' reflections on their perceived risk and reported real-time risk management. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have implications for planning quad-bike safety interventions, which may benefit from incorporating both 'reflective' contemplation of risks and skills for coping with things suddenly going wrong 'in the moment'.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".