MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004701503 · doi:10.1037/1076-8998.14.1.1

Occupational risk perception, safety training, and injury prevention: Testing a model in the Italian printing industry.

2009· article· en· W2004701503 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational Health Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupational safety and healthRisk perceptionPerceptionOccupational injuryHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychological interventionInjury preventionStructural equation modelingPsychologyRisk assessmentPersonal protective equipmentApplied psychologyPoison controlWork (physics)Environmental healthMedicineNursingEngineeringComputer securityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined occupational risk perception in relation to safety training and injuries. In a printing industry, 350 workers from 6 departments completed a survey. Data analysis showed significant differences in risk perceptions among departments. Differences in risk perception reflected the type of work and the injury incidents in the departments. A structural equation analysis confirmed a model of risk perception on the basis of employees' evaluation of the prevalence and lethalness of hazards as well as the control over hazards they gain from training. The number of injuries sustained was positively related to the perception of risk exposure and negatively related to evaluations about the safety training. The results highlight the importance of training interventions in increasing workers' adoption of safety procedures and prevention of injuries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.300
GPT teacher head0.586
Teacher spread0.286 · 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