Commitment vs. Control‐based Safety Practices, Safety Réputation, and Perceived Safety Climate
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We investigated the extent to which commitment versus control‐based safety practices and occupational safety reputation influence perceived safety climate. Both these variables were manipulated experimentally using a vignette approach, creating a 2 × 2 design (safety practices vs. safety reputation). We hypothesized that any effects of safety practices would be direct, as well as mediated by trust in management and affective commitment, while the effects of safety reputation would only be direct. We also expected that the interaction of safety reputation and safety practices would yield stronger effects than either of the variables operating individual‐ly. There was substantial support for the direct and indirect effects of safety practices. In contrast, safety reputation exerted neither direct nor indirect effects. There were no significant interactions. We suggest directions for further research on the optimal management of occupational safety. Résumé Nous avons étudié l'ampleur avec laquelle les pratiques de sécurité, centrées sur l'engagement comparativement à celles centrées sur le contrǒle, et la réputation de sécurité au travail influencent la perception du climat de sécurité. Ces deux variables ont été manipulées expérimentalement par l'utilisation d'une vignette, en créant un modèle 2 times 2 (pratiques de sécurité par rapport à réputation de sécurité). Nous avons posé l'hypothèse que les pratiques de sécurité entraǐnaient, en plus des effets directs, des effets indirects grǎce à la confiance envers les gestionnaires et l'engagement affectif alors que la réputation de sécurité n'avait que des effets directs. Nous avons aussi envisagé que l'interaction de la réputation de sécurité et des pratiques de sécurité produisait un effet plus marqué que chacune des deux variables opérant séparément. Nos résultats ont largement corroboré l'hypothèse relative aux effets directs et indirects des pratiques de sécurité; par contre, il s'est avéré que la réputation de sécurité n'avait ni effet direct ni indirect. Par ailleurs, il n'y avait aucune interaction significative. Nous proposons aussi quelques lignes directrices pour de nouvelles recherches sur la gestion optimale de la sécurité au travail.
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it