Factors Affecting Road Tunnel Construction Accidents in China Based on Grounded Theory and DEMATEL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the continuous progress of tunnel construction technology and safety management technology, road tunnel construction safety still faces many challenges in China, such as how to ensure the effective management and safety control of people and materials, how to ensure the implementation of technology and program implementation, risk assessment of construction site environmental information, etc. Exploring the causes of tunnel construction accidents and understanding the properties of the factors and their interrelationships can effectively control the sources of risk and contribute to the safety control of tunnel construction. Therefore, we have collected 30 formal accident investigation reports from the government safety supervision and management department from 2005 to 2021, including detailed investigation and accident analysis. Based on grounded theory, a qualitative research method to generalize experience through direct observation, abstraction, and analysis of data, we use Nvivo11 software to analyze reports and obtain 6 selective codes, 16 spindle codes, and 43 open codes. In addition, we construct a theoretical model of tunnel construction accident influencing factors, which passed the saturation test. The Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) model is used to analyze the influencing mechanism and interaction relationships of these factors. The two dimensions of influence degree and centrality are used to determine the critical influencing factors of tunnel construction accidents in mountainous areas. They are security awareness and professionalism. According to the cause degree, the influencing factors are divided into cause and result factors. Finally, the basis and suggestions for reducing construction accidents are presented.
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 | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".