Occupational safety in the construction industry
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
BACKGROUND: The paper is a research review focusing on occupational safety in the construction industry. OBJECTIVE: The purpose is to present research that highlights the areas of occupational safety and risks and to identify areas where research is lacking. METHODS: 146 articles from scientific journals, mainly covering the construction industry in Europe, Canada, USA, Australia and Japan have been studied. The findings are presented under 11 categories: accident statistics; individual factors; legislation and regulations; ethical considerations; risk management; leadership, management, organization; competence; safety design; cost-benefit calculations; programs and models; and technical solutions. RESULTS: The research is dominated by initiatives from researchers and government authorities, while the construction industry only appears as the object for the research. There is a scarcity of research on integrated systems encompassing subcontractors, as well as a lack of research with sociological perspectives on accidents. Furthermore, only a few studies have applied a gender perspective on safety in construction, i.e. there is a need of further research in this particular area. CONCLUSIONS: A range of initiatives have been taken to increase safety in the construction industry and the initiatives are mainly reported to be successful. There are some cultural differences, but basically researchers present similar results regardless of country.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
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