Occupational Health and Safety Indicators and Under-Reporting: Case Studies in Chinese Shipping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An index-based approach to indicate the outcome of Occupational Health and Safety management has been commonly used in the implementation of the International Safety Management Code and the operation of Occupational Health and Safety management systems in the international shipping industry. Although the index-based approach is asserted to be a convenient way to measure and quantify the outcome of Occupational Health and Safety management, it is not justified in the wider literature and further empirical research is suggested by various authors. The aim of this study is to explore the role of an index-based approach in managing Occupational Health and Safety in the shipping industry. This article investigates the effectiveness of indicators in Occupational Health and Safety management in two Chinese chemical shipping companies. A qualitative approach is applied to examine the views of seafarers on safety reporting practice. The study reveals that, although the need for reporting is understood by most of the crew members, the reporting practice is significantly affected by different factors such as the crew’s concerns for their own interests, Chinese cultural factors and management’s dominant power over the crew’s performance evaluation. The findings suggest that there is a significant gap between what is required by the rules and what really occurs in terms of safety reporting practice. The study highlights the emerging problems of using Occupational Health and Safety indicators as benchmark for measuring the outcome of Occupational Health and Safety management in Chinese shipping. The conclusion is drawn in a Chinese context, and although the findings may not be similar to other industries or the shipping industry in other countries, they provide valuable indications for re-thinking and re-shaping maritime regulatory strategies.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".