Effectiveness of workplace health and safety programs in university settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was conducted among the faculty members, staff, graduate students and researchers of Memorial University (MUN) through well-designed surveys to evaluate the effectiveness of the health and safety programs provided by the Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) Unit at MUN. To establish a benchmark and to understand Memorial’s environmental health and safety programs relative to other institutions, we have reviewed the health and safety programs of ten universities across Canada and performed a comparative study with Memorial’s safety programs based on the publicly available information on university webpage. We have conducted two identical online surveys of MUN employees and graduate students on their knowledge, attitude, and behavior regarding health and safety in October, 2016, and in April, 2017. A quantitative analysis was done to understand the health and safety awareness with reference to different demographic factors and the effect of the dissemination of the health and safety information on knowledge, attitude, and behavior of employees and graduate students. Our survey results were compared with the result of a previous survey, conducted in 2013 on safety culture of Memorial University. The surveys were followed by Key Informant Interviews (KII) of eight officials of Memorial University to understand the causes of some of the findings from the surveys and get the views of the university administration on some of the comments made by the survey respondents. Overall, the survey results show that Memorial University has progressed significantly in communication and in the use of online tools to manage the environment, health, and safety. Also, Memorial has a good health and safety policy in place, and the health and safety program is at par with other Canadian universities.
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 | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".