Changes in Safety Attitudes in a Canadian Regional Airline Following a Merger
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examines the impact a merger had on pilot safety attitudes. Pre and post merger safety attitudes among a sample of Canadian pilots were examined using the Flight Management Attitudes Questionnaire 2.1 (FMAQ) (Merritt, Helmreich, Wilhelm, & Sherman, 1996) and the Flight Management Attitudes and Safety Survey (FMASS) (Sexton, Wilhelm, Helmreich, Merritt, & Klinect, 2001). Data were collected from 232 airline pilots prior to a large-scale merger using the FMAQ 2.1. Approximately 1 year following the merger, FMASS data were collected from the newly merged organization. We hypothesized that pilots’ safety attitudes were negatively impacted due to uncertainty and organisational change following the merger. Results of the study indicate that post merger attitudes were significantly different on the teamwork, job attitudes and safety culture facets of the scale, however there were no significant differences in the stress recognition following the merger. In addition, the psychometric properties of the FMASS were examined. Implications for this study include understanding how change within an aviation organisation impacts safety attitudes thus impacting the overall safety culture of the newly created organisation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".