MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377943344 · doi:10.1108/sl-03-2023-0033

Using “CEO-speak” to prioritize a safety culture

2023· article· en· W4377943344 on OpenAlexaff
Russell Craig, Joel Amernic

Bibliographic record

VenueStrategy and Leadership · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsECW Press (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOriginalityValue (mathematics)Safety cultureOrganizational cultureBusinessPublic relationsKey (lock)MarketingManagementSociologyPolitical scienceEconomicsComputer scienceQualitative researchComputer securitySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper points to five features that CEO language should have to help enable a robust safety culture. Design/methodology/approach The paper draws empirical support mainly from the CEO-speak of the CEO of Norfolk Southern Railway in the year prior to the major derailment of a company train and subsequent toxic chemical spill in East Palestine Ohio in February 2023. Findings CEOs should incorporate the following five features into their CEO-speak. They should actually use the word safety but “in doing so” avoid platitudes about safety. They should exude genuine commitment to safety “cite meaningful safety performance measures” and not ignore operating risks. Originality/value Safety is a critically important aspect of corporate endeavor. Yet discussion of it is grossly under-represented in the professional and academic literature. This paper offers sound suggestions that reinforce the need for CEOs to write and speak in a way that ensures their company’s commitments to a strong safety culture are not merely platitudinous buzzwords but are genuinely key strategic elements of their company’s business model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.082
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.082
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.586
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.047 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrategy and LeadershipSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207