Workers’ Knowledge and Views on Interaction with Health and Safety Representatives: An Exploratory Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The action of health and safety representatives (HSRs) has proven beneficial for workers’ occupational health, but a number of determining factors can diminish HSRs’ effectiveness. One understudied factor shaping HSRs’ effectiveness is the interaction that exists between workers and HSRs, that is, the relationship that workers and their representatives establish with each other throughout a wide range of processes. In this paper, we explore the workers’ knowledge and opinions of their interaction with HSRs and its determinants. We undertook a qualitative exploratory and descriptive-interpretative study by means of 22 semi-structured interviews with a theoretical sample of workers from Barcelona and Girona (Spain). Results show a vast unawareness of HSRs’ existence and functions among workers; only the few workers who know the HSRs personally describe interaction processes with them, mainly concerning hazard identification. Some of the workers mentioned processes of interaction with unions regarding health and safety at work. These processes consist mainly in raising issues with union representatives and, in a more limited way, in associating with occupational health mobilizations and participating in decision-making processes. Determining factors of the interaction between workers and -health and safety or union- representatives emerge strongly in relation to representatives and workers and, in a more diluted way, with regard to the context or the firm. The study contributes to the research concerning the building of relations of representativeness as a way to better understand (and represent) workers’ needs and provides strategic insight for collective representation bodies to regain their legitimacy.
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 | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".