A proposed occupational health and safety risk estimation tool for manufacturing systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are numerous hazards to be found in almost any workplace. Annually, millions of workers die, are injured or become ill as a result of these occupational hazards. Industrial machines are often involved in these occupational accidents. Because of the demands of regulatory compliance, and the potentially high cost in terms of human suffering and lost production, businesses should place particular emphasis on safety measures. Risk is defined as a combination of the probability of harm and the severity of its consequences. Generally, risk estimation involves examining the hazards associated with a situation or with the use of a machine. A large number of techniques have been proposed for risk estimation, and recent studies have revealed that some of them have serious flaws. The main objective of this paper is to develop a proposed risk assessment tool based on the findings of an earlier study. Our research results constitute a first step towards the integration of occupational health and safety (OHS) concerns into facility planning models which traditionally do not consider OHS. The proposed risk estimation tool is developed based on the characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of 31 existing risk estimation tools, and is then applied to 20 scenarios representing different hazardous situations. To evaluate the performance of the proposed tool, the results were compared with those of other risk estimation tools and confirmed its proposed ability to estimate risk relative to other risk estimation tools.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".