Safety Leadership, Covid-19 Risk Perception, and Safety Behavior: The Moderator Role of Work Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examines how safety leadership, workers' risk perception of Covid-19, safety motivation, and work pressure affect safety compliance and safety participation behaviors.A survey questionnaire was distributed to 967 production workers from eight garment and footwear enterprises in Vietnam in 2021.The data analysis of the survey was analyzed using SPSS and SmartPLS.The results of the Structural Equation Modeling technique indicate that all three safety leadership factors (participative management, safety concern, and safety incentive) & risk perception of Covid-19 have a direct, positive influence on both safety motivation and worker's safety behaviors (safety compliance and safety participation behaviors), except that safety incentive does not predict safety participation behavior.Safety concern has the greatest impact on safety compliance behavior, whereas participative management has been identified as the most important factor affecting safety participation behavior.It was also found that work pressure acted as a moderator in explaining the relationship between safety motivation and worker safety compliance behavior.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".