Effectiveness of joint health and safety committees: A realist review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Joint health and safety committees (JHSCs) are widely acknowledged as important to a healthy and safe work environment. However, it is also generally believed that having a JHSC is necessary but not sufficient; the JHSC must be effective. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken to find empirical studies regarding the effectiveness of JHSCs; realist review methodology was applied to determine context-mechanism-outcome patterns. Experts from across Canada and from various sectors and perspectives including government, employers, and unions, were brought together to inform the synthesis. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies met inclusion criteria. Mechanisms identified as important determinants of JHSC effectiveness across various jurisdictions include adequate information, education and training; appropriate committee composition; senior management commitment to JHSCs; and especially a clear mandate with a broad scope and corresponding empowerment (through legislation and/or union presence). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent empowerment mechanisms emerge as determinants of successful JHSCs across contexts despite few evidence-based details for best practice implementation. Intervention research is warranted.
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 | 0.037 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".