Predicting Construction Workers’ Intentions to Engage in Unsafe Behaviours Using Machine Learning Algorithms and Taxonomy of Personality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamic environmental circumstances can sometimes be incompatible with proactive human intentions of being safe, leading individuals to take unintended risks. Behaviour predictions, as performed in previous studies, are found to involve environmental circumstances as predictors, which might thereby result in biased safety conclusions about individuals’ inner intentions to engage in unsafe behaviours. This research calls attention to relatively less-understood worker intentions and provides a machine learning (ML) approach to help understand workers’ intentions to engage in unsafe behaviours based on the workers’ inner drives, i.e., personality. Personality is consistent across circumstances and allows insight into one’s intentions. To mathematically develop the approach, data on personality and behavioural intentions was collected from 268 workers. Five ML architectures—backpropagation neural network (BP-NN), decision tree, support vector machine, k-nearest neighbours, and multivariate linear regression—were used to capture the predictive relationship. The results showed that BP-NN outperformed other algorithms, yielding minimal prediction loss, and was determined to be the best approach. The approach can generate quantifiable predictions to understand the extent of workers’ inner intentions to engage in unsafe behaviours. Such knowledge is useful for understanding undesirable aspects in different workers in order to recommend suitable preventive strategies for workers with different needs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".