MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Health and Safety

2015· other· en· W4251480517 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Encyclopedia of Management · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupational safety and healthWork (physics)Occupational health nursingCompensation (psychology)Human resource managementBusinessAffect (linguistics)Organizational safetyEffective safety trainingPsychologyRisk analysis (engineering)Environmental healthKnowledge managementOrganizational performancePublic healthMedicineEngineeringNursingMarketingComputer scienceOrganizational behavior and human resourcesHealth promotionSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Do human resource management ( HRM ) practices affect occupational health and safety? We first describe the prevalence of workplace injuries as an indicator of occupational health and safety in the United States, and then describe existing research on the relationship between HRM systems (e.g., “high‐performance work systems”) and occupational safety. This research helps to affirm evidence that some of the same mechanisms that encourage high organizational performance also have a beneficial relationship with occupational health and safety. We then focus on two particular HRM practices, namely, autonomous work design and relative compensation, detailing evidence of their effects on occupational health and safety at the individual and organizational levels of analysis.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.369 · 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