Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review article addresses the role of safety professionals in the diffusion strategies for predictive analytics for safety performance. The article explores the models, definitions, roles, and relationships of safety professionals in knowledge application, access, management, and leadership in safety analytics. The article addresses challenges safety professionals face when integrating safety analytics in organizational settings in four operations areas: application, technology, management, and strategy. A review of existing conventional safety data sources (safety data, internal data, external data, and context data) is briefly summarized as a baseline. For each of these data sources, the article points out how emerging analytic data sources (such as Industry 4.0 and the Internet of Things) broaden and challenge the scope of work and operational roles throughout an organization. In doing so, the article defines four perspectives on the integration of predictive analytics into organizational safety practice: the programmatic perspective, the technological perspective, the sociocultural perspective, and knowledge-organization perspective. The article posits a four-level, organizational knowledge-skills-abilities matrix for analytics integration, indicating key organizational capacities needed for each area. The work shows the benefits of organizational alignment, clear stakeholder categorization, and the ability to predict future safety performance.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".