MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2410350287 · doi:10.1037/apl0000116

Safety in the c-suite: How chief executive officers influence organizational safety climate and employee injuries.

2016· article· en· W2410350287 on OpenAlexafffund
Sean Tucker, Babatunde Ogunfowora, Dayle Ehr

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsycINFOPsychologyOrganisation climateOrganizational learningPerceived organizational supportOrganizational safetyApplied psychologyOccupational safety and healthOrganizational commitmentPublic relationsSocial psychologyKnowledge managementOrganizational behavior and human resourcesMEDLINEOrganizational engineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to social learning theory, powerful and high status individuals can significantly influence the behaviors of others. In this paper, we propose that chief executive officers (CEOs) indirectly impact frontline injuries through the collective social learning experiences and effort of different groups of organizational actors-including members of the top management team (TMT), organizational supervisors, and frontline employees. We found support for our collective social learning model using data from 2,714 frontline employees, 1,398 supervisors, and 229 members of TMTs in 54 organizations. TMT members' experiences within a CEO-driven TMT safety climate was positively related to organizational supervisors' reports of the broader organizational safety climate and their subsequent collective support for safety (reported by frontline employees). In turn, supervisory support for safety was associated with fewer employee injuries at the individual level. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings for workplace safety research and practice. (PsycINFO Database Record

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.388 · 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

Citations78
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PsychologySame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207