Safety culture research and practice: A review of 30 years of research collaboration
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
Safety culture is a prevalent construct in industrial safety management and arguably one of the most important developments in industrial safety in recent history. This paper aims to provide insight into how an undefined term coined in 1986 has become a major area of collaborative research. This paper also intends to discuss how the construct of safety culture is a positive example of collaborative research and knowledge translation. A literature search was conducted to identify all peer‐reviewed journal articles that included the term “safety culture” in the title in the database. The relevant publications are compared with the use of safety culture by industry and governments to illustrate the intertwined relationship between research and practice. An initial literature search yielded 1,253 article findings. After refining search results, 420 relevant peer‐reviewed articles from 1986 until 2016 remained. Safety culture research has been conducted in response to industry interest in the concept. This industry interest has not only resulted in excellent knowledge translation but also may have contributed to the fragmentation of the research area.
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 | 0.143 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| 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 it