O1E.6 The impact of a program of mandatory awareness training on worker awareness and empowerment to participate in injury prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On July 1 st 2014, the province of Ontario introduced a program of mandatory occupational health and safety (OHS) awareness training. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of this program on worker level self-reported OHS awareness and empowerment to participate in injury prevention activities in Ontario, compared to the province of British Columbia (BC) where no similar program was introduced. We collected information on OHS awareness and empowerment, as well as participation in OHS training from samples of workers in Ontario and BC on four occasions. The first survey was conducted between May and June 2014 (prior to the introduction of mandatory training); then additional surveys were completed in February/March 2015, September/October 2015, and November/December 2017. For each cross-sectional sample we recruited over 1800 respondents, with a total sample of over 7500 respondents (63% from Ontario) across all time points. Logistic regression models were used to examine a time by province interaction in each outcome, after adjusting for a variety of workplace and worker characteristics. After the introduction of mandatory awareness training respondents in Ontario were almost twice as likely to participate in training compared to respondents in BC. However, we observed no difference in trends over time (pre-post introduction of mandatory training) in levels of adequate awareness or empowerment between Ontario and BC. Respondents in Ontario had higher levels of adequate OHS awareness than respondents in BC at all time points (both before and after the introduction of mandatory awareness training). No differences were present between Ontario and BC in relation to empowerment. Taken together, these results suggest that the introduction of mandatory awareness training in Ontario was associated with greater training participation. However, no differences in levels of adequate awareness or empowerment were observed between Ontario respondents compared to BC respondents.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.003 |
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".