Preventive behaviour at work of vocational students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Statistics suggest young workers are a group at high risk of sustaining injury. Vocational students are frequently included in the ‘young workers’ group, with all other different types of workers aged 24 or less. However, the literature exposes vocational students as having specific descriptive characteristics, suggesting that this subgroup might differ from other ‘young workers’. The literature offers little description of this population towards prevention at work. The aim of the study was to explore factors associated with vocational students’ preventive behaviour at work. Methods: The study was conducted with 129 participants following a predictive correlational design. Preventive behaviour and some personal, occupational and environmental factors were recorded by validated questionnaires. Multiple regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with vocational students’ preventive behaviour at work. Results: Findings showed the majority of vocational students had a moderate level of preventive behaviour at work. Most relevant factors associated with preventive behaviour at work for this specific population were: (1) type of prevention training, (2) autonomous motivation, (3) study programme and (4) type of school. Conclusion: Vocational students are a specific population and it is important to work on relevant factors during their studies to help them become involved towards prevention.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".