MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133143798 · doi:10.1139/l08-091

Individual safety and health outcomes in the construction industry

2008· article· en· W2133143798 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Brenda McCabe, Catherine Loughlin, R. Munteanu, Sean Tucker, Andrew Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversityQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersWorkplace Safety and Insurance Board
KeywordsApprenticeshipPsychologySituational ethicsOccupational safety and healthApplied psychologyWork experienceInterpersonal communicationDemographicsWork (physics)Operations managementSocial psychologyMedicineEngineeringDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between 2004 and 2006, 911 self-administered questionnaires were collected from 84 nonresidential Ontario construction sites. Each questionnaire contained 105 questions and took approximately 15 min to complete. This paper presents one study from that research project that seeks to understand the relationship among worker demographics, worker safety attitudes, and worker health and safety outcomes (e.g., worker well-being and accidents). The participants had an average age of 38.3 years with 15.1 years experience in the industry. Short job tenure, age, experience, and job position were highly related to safety outcomes. Apprentices experienced more accidents, whereas supervisors reported more work-related psychological symptoms. Among the situational factors, higher work pressure, high interpersonal conflict, and low-quality leadership were most strongly associated with work-related health outcomes and accidents. Regression models were developed with a maximum adjusted coefficient of determination of 0.28. A graphical means of modeling the data was demonstrated in the form of a Bayesian belief network.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations56
Published2008
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207