Safety and Age: A Longitudinal Study of Ontario Construction Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although safety performance measurement over time are vital for safety management, few longitudinal studies of construction safety have been conducted. While youth (age 18-24) are most often the focus of safety initiatives, safety management of older workers (age 55 plus) is also important because of the large percentage of older workforce. This paper examines the change in safety incidents on Ontario construction sites based on survey data from 2004 and 2014. Safety incident frequencies of three age groups (18-24, 25-54, 55 plus) are compared. The results show a downward trend for nearly all incident types. However, sprains or strains and fractures (high cost injuries) remain unchanged. Correspondingly, slips, trips and falls, which are the indicator events, are up. In addition, the results show that youth have the greatest decrease in frequency of almost all incident types and older workers made the greatest improvement percentage-wise in physical injuries and safety events. However, youth should still be the focus of safety initiatives because they experience the most incidents in 14 out of 26 injury and event types. Safety training strategies may need to be adapted to the older workforce given the important role of older workers in building a safer workplace.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".