MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803127617 · doi:10.1177/2379298118775950

Outfitting the Office: An Experiential Health and Safety Exercise

2018· article· en· W2803127617 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Teaching Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFacilities and Workplace Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of the Fraser Valley
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExperiential learningHazardProductivityHuman resourcesSpace (punctuation)Resource (disambiguation)Medical educationKnowledge managementPsychologyEngineeringMedicineManagementPedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We created the “Outfitting the Office” exercise to increase student engagement with health and safety concepts in introductory human resource management courses. The experiential exercise consists of two phases: (1) hazard recognition in a typical office and print room setting and (2) office design with a focus on employee health and wellness. The first phase was developed as an introductory activity to get students working together in their teams and to sensitize them to safety considerations. The second, longer, phase provides students with the opportunity to apply their readings in a decision-making scenario. In this scenario, students simulate a human resources firm that is tasked with renovating and furnishing a healthy and safe office space. Feedback from students indicates that this exercise is a fun and engaging way to learn about the health and safety factors that can affect worker comfort and enhance individual, team, and organizational productivity.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.323 · 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