MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285171038 · doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2022.06.250

Socio-demographic factors of industrial injuries of railway workers

2022· article· en· W4285171038 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
В. А. Лапшов, Sergey Kuleshov, А. А. Озеров, Yulia Trubina, P. A. Kostin

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation research procedia · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Systems and Public Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransport engineeringOccupational safety and healthHuman factors and ergonomicsProcess (computing)BusinessEngineeringEnvironmental healthForensic engineeringPoison controlRisk analysis (engineering)MedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article identifies socio-demographic factors of industrial injuries sustained by railway sector workers, as well as the practice of applying the Vision Zero concept aimed at improving road safety. In the process of writing this scientific article, the following methods were used: integration of research data produced in Canada and France, analysis of statistical data of the studies under consideration; comparative analysis of socio-demographic factors of occupational injuries identified in Canada, France, London and Malaysia, comparison with data for Russia; systematic analysis of the practices of applying the Vision Zero concept in the railway transport sector. The results obtained allow us to identify socio-demographic factors that have the strongest impact on occupational injuries in the field of railway transport. Apart from this, the result of this research allows management structures to be able to neutralize or minimize the effect of the identified factors and reduce the number of occupational injuries, including fatal ones. The identified trends make a huge contribution to improving the safety of the railway industry and its development generally.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation research procediaSame topicHealthcare Systems and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207