MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975563320 · doi:10.1348/096317908x325313

Safety leadership: A longitudinal study of the effects of transformational leadership on safety outcomes

2008· article· en· W1975563320 on OpenAlexaff
Jane Mullen, E. Kevin Kelloway

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversityMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformational leadershipMultivariate analysis of variancePsychologyLeadership styleTest (biology)Psychological interventionApplied psychologyMultivariate analysisSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transformational leadership based interventions were assessed using a pre‐test, post‐test, and control group design. Leaders ( N =54) from 21 long‐term health care organizations were randomly assigned to general transformational leadership training, safety‐specific transformational leadership training, or a control group. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) showed that leadership training resulted in significant effects on manager post‐training ratings of safety attitudes, intent to promote safety, and self‐efficacy. The effects of leadership training on employee ( N =115) perceptions of leader safety‐specific transformational leadership, safety climate, safety participation, safety compliance, safety‐related events and, injuries were also assessed. Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), with the pre‐test scores as the covariates, showed that leadership training resulted in significant effects on the safety‐specific transformational leadership and safety climate outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.264
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations347
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Organizational PsychologySame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207