A systematic literature review of the effectiveness of occupational health and safety regulatory enforcement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the strength of evidence on the effectiveness of legislative and regulatory policy levers in creating incentives for organizations to improve occupational health and safety processes and outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken to assess the strength of evidence on the effectiveness of specific policy levers using a "best-evidence" synthesis approach. RESULTS: A structured literature search identified 11,947 citations from 13 peer-reviewed literature databases. Forty-three studies were retained for synthesis. Strong evidence was identified for three out of nine clusters. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence that several OHS policy levers are effective in terms of reducing injuries and/or increasing compliance with legislation. This study adds to the evidence on OHS regulatory effectiveness from an earlier review. In addition to new evidence supporting previous study findings, it included new categories of evidence-compliance as an outcome, nature of enforcement, awareness campaigns, and smoke-free workplace legislation. Am. J. Ind. Med. 59:919-933, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it