The construction of Canadian business schools’ occupational health and safety curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation revisits the socio-historical origins and perspectives of Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) practice and its relationship to OHS studies in Canadian business schools by concentrating on the first Workmen's Compensation Acts (WCA) in the early 20th century and the first comprehensive OHS Acts that emerged in the early 1970s.It was during these two eras of massive public unrest and openly expressed public fears about health and safety that the largest and most influential OHS regulatory bodies endeavored to provide solutions to the escalating OHS problems in Canada.This resulted in the regulatory agencies attempting to set rules and standards for work-related OHS behaviours and conduct.A critical hermeneutic analysis of five interpretive moments on the legal documents and related publications produced during the planning, passing, and implementation of these legislations, followed by a third analysis of the first Canadian business schools' OHS curriculum documents that emerged in parallel with the later OHS laws, allow us to see how OHS business practices and studies were shaped.My findings reveal that while many OHS methods of the law makers remained the same, with some being strengthened and others being introduced, the underlying perspectives within these social practices remained unaltered for over a century.The Safety Pays ethos (the belief that it pays for business owners to engage in OHS activities) and the WorkSafe ethos (the belief that it is best for workers to take responsibility for their health and safety) have been woven deep within accepted business practices and studies related to OHS, the former considering OHS mechanisms that make financial sense and dismiss more humane practices that do not, and the latter promoting workers' behaviour change over organization change.The 100 years of historical conflicts and compromises that resulted in today's OHS "common-sense" business techniques and teachings can be explained through hegemonic processes.November 17, 2017.Ontario.Ministry of Labour.(1982).63 rd Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 1982.Toronto, ON: Ministry of Labour.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".