Enhancing construction safety: Machine learning-based classification of injury types
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The construction industry is a hazardous industry with significant injuries and fatalities. Few studies have used data-driven analysis to investigate injuries due to construction accidents. This study aims to deploy machine learning (ML) models to predict four injury types (ITs): Upper limbs, lower limbs, head/neck, and back/trunk. A total of 16,878 construction accident records in Australia were collected and fed into several ML algorithms, including fine trees, ensemble of boosted trees, xgboost, random forest, two types of support vector machines, and logistic regression. Six performance metrics of precision, recall, accuracy, F1 score, the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC), and the area under precision recall curve (AUPRC) were used to evaluate modeling outputs. Random forest showed superior performance in predicting injury types (accuracy 79.3%; recall 78.0%; F1 score 78.5%; precision 77.1%; AUROC 0.98; and AUPRC 0.78). The critical features of injury types were analyzed using the feature importance method and accident nature and mechanism had significant impacts. The study’s findings contribute to safety enhancement by providing quantitative prediction models of injury types and subsequent development of safety controls in construction.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it