A Survey among Three Iranian Occupational Groups: General Knowledge of Chemical Safety and Familiarity with GHS and Outdated Labeling Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This descriptive–analytic study was conducted to evaluate the level of chemical safety knowledge of three Iranian occupational groups including retailers of dangerous chemical substances, occupational health and safety (OH&S) professionals, and workers in chemical plants. The study also assessed their familiarity with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) and old editions of US OSHA-HCS, Canadian WHMIS and UK CHIP. The current status of chemical labeling in Iran was also assessed. First, two questionnaires were compiled and validated. After determining the sample size, the questionnaires were filled out by 251 participants. A statistical test showed that a meaningful correlation exists between the age/education of the participants and their chemical safety knowledge and GHS familiarity scores ( p < 0.05). However, no meaningful statistical correlation was observed between the type of occupation and awareness score. Analysis of the current status of chemical safety labeling revealed that the GHS diamond shape is not suitably familiar for Iranian chemical occupational groups. Further training is needed for proper reading and understanding of labels/catalogs, usage of safety data sheets (SDSs), and the meanings of warning labels in the Iranian chemical industry.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".