How many employees receive safety training during their first year of a new job?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the provision of safety training to Canadian employees, specifically those in their first year of employment with a new employer. DESIGN: Three repeated national Canadian cross-sectional surveys. SUBJECTS: 59 159 respondents from Statistics Canada's Workplace and Employee Surveys (1999, 2001 and 2003), 5671 who were in their first year of employment. MAIN OUTCOME: Receiving occupational health and safety training, orientation training or office or non-office equipment training in either a classroom or on-the-job in the previous 12 months. RESULTS: Only 12% of women and 16% of men reported receiving safety training in the previous 12 months. Employees in their first 12 months of employment were more likely to receive safety training than employees with >5 years of job tenure. However, still only one in five new employees had received any safety training while with their current employer. In a fully adjusted regression model, employees who had access to family and support programs, women in medium-sized workplaces and in manufacturing, and men in large workplaces and in part-time employment all had an increased probability of receiving safety training. No increased likelihood of safety training was found in younger workers or those in jobs with higher physical demands, both of which are associated with increased injury risk. CONCLUSIONS: From our results, it would appear that only one in five Canadian employees in their first year of a new job received safety training. Further, the provision of safety training does not appear to be more prevalent among workers or in occupations with increased risk 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".