Scoping Review of the Occupational Health and Safety Governance in Sudan: The Story So Far
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The reoccurrence of occupational accidents in Sudan is evidence of a lack of effective Occupational Health and Safety (OSH) governance in Sudan. Methods: This scope review research articles on OSH governance in Sudan from different sources, including international websites, official government websites, original research articles in journals, and various reports. The five stages of the scoping review followed in this study are: identifying the research question; identifying relevant studies; study selection; charting the data; collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. Results: There is numerous legislation in place; however, there is no evidence of their enforcement, and no formal bodies at the national level are identified as being responsible for their enforcement. Conclusion: Having multiple authorities with overlapping responsibilities hinders OSH governance. An integrated governance model is proposed to eliminate overlapping duties and to facilitate the participation of all stakeholders in the governance process.
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 | 0.027 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".