Learning to Take Action: The Goals of Health and Safety Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Worker health and safety training is an important part of occupational health and safety programs. In the United States, governments, unions, employers, university programs, and health and safety advocacy organizations make training available. This article considers training effectiveness research conducted and supported by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and some done in collaboration with the Institute for Work and Health (Canada). Differing perspectives regarding the purpose of worker health and safety training are reviewed and critiqued. We assert that a focus on changing the working behaviors of workers exposed to hazardous conditions is less appropriate and scientifically rigorous than a focus on helping workers establish the power to reduce and eliminate workplace hazards. For training to lead to a decrease in morbidities and fatalities related to hazardous exposures, it needs to be integrated with workers' attainment of such power.
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 | 0.049 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".