MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analysis of Events and Exposures Leading to Construction Injuries in Developing Countries: The Case of Lebanon

2022· article· en· W4210585803 on OpenAlexaff
Makram Bou Hatoum, Hala Nassereddine, Farook Hamzeh, Hanna Khoury

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveBusinessConstruction industryDeveloping countryOccupational safety and healthOperations managementActuarial scienceRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringEconomic growthEconomicsMedicineConstruction engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is unanimous agreement that the complex and dynamic nature of construction jobsites is coupled with inherent risks. Global occupational and health agencies revealed that the construction industry leads with the number of fatal injuries incurred every year. Lebanon, a developing country in the Middle East, is no exception. Studies on construction safety in the country showed that the industry has failed to implement safety regulations, while also witnessing a lack of safety incentives, training, and education. The situation worsens with the absence of a national experience multiplier that could reflect on contractors’ safety statuses and hold them accountable for their safety performance. This study addresses the problem by proposing a cost model that evaluates construction injuries. An analysis was performed on more than 3,000 accident claims collected from insurance companies to understand the events and exposures that construction labour face. Results showed that there are 17 different types of events and exposures which can be grouped into three clusters depending on their frequency and average cost. This paper presents and expands on the three clusters and identifies the events that fall under each of them. The findings will serve as the base of the cost model in a future study.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and EngineeringSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207