Social sustainability through occupational health and safety prevention in the construction industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The construction of reinforced concrete buildings and structures \nfaces several challenges that aren't limited to the design of the \nstructure and the pouring of concrete. Reinforcing steel bars must be \nassembled, installed in casing formworks and checked for quality purposes, \nin changing weather conditions, in a continuously changing \nbuilding site and in lean construction environments and requirements. \nThis article presents the documented material and technological parameters \nand activities (tasks, equipments, environment and variations) \nof rebar installers in Europe and North America. Many databases \nand websites have been consulted in French, in English and Rumanian: \nPubMed, Medline, Sante Canada, Centers for Disease Control \nand Prevention, Construction Safety Association of Ontario, European \nAgency for Safety and Health at Work, Occupational Safety and \nHealth Administration, Fondation École Française du Béton, Classification \nNationale des Postes, Métiers Sceau Rouge, Conseil Canadien \ndes Normes, etc. Rebar installers must cut, shape and put in place \nsteel components (notched rods, wreath steel wires and wire-mesh), \nthat will be assembled in horizontal (concrete slabs, decks, beams \nand superstructures of bridges) or vertical (pillars and posts) formworKs. \nAlternatively, the steel rebars could be assembled in a shop, \nmoved to the construction site and installed in formworks (by crane). \nRebar joints are spliced by a steel wire, welding or mechanical splices. \nThese activities, work organization, environment and equipments \nare source of many occupational health and safety risks that will also \nbe presented in this article.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".