The Relationship between the Maturity of Safety Management Practices and Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The construction industry requires an ability to assess the organizational performance with respect to occupational health and safety and to identify areas in need of improvement. For this purpose, a model has been developed to evaluate a safety management program with an emphasis on organizational processes. The result is an organizational safety management maturity model based on the hypothesis that continuous improvement of the safety program denotes higher organizational maturity and greater safety performance. This paper presents the researchers' development of the model; its application in collaboration with practitioners; and a sample of results to date. The model was developed through a literature review of safety performance, safety culture, safety climate, and maturity modelling research. Validation of the model includes elicitation from occupational health and safety experts, and application of the model to a representative set (in size and expected maturity) of construction organizations. The validation and data collection processes are completed in collaboration with the New Brunswick Construction Safety Association and WorkSafeNB (regional government's occupational health and safety organization). Only sample results to date are provided, to demonstrate how the model can be used to focus on the larger opportunities for improvement with respect to the factor groupings of 1) management commitment, 2) policy and standards, 3) worker involvement and commitment, 4) hazard management, 5) equipment, materials, and resources, and 6) working environment, and within each factor grouping the management cycle steps of 1) plan, 2) do, 3) check, and 4) act.
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 | 0.010 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".