Safe Working Practices and Knowledge in the Practice of Sustainability: A Narrative in the Context of a Forest Operation in a Brazilian Pulp Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study articulates the concepts of sustainability and work safety to understand how safe working practices enable knowledge in the practice of sustainability. Anchored in the lenses of the learning process of practiced-based studies, we conducted a case study of qualitative nature in a forest harvest operation of a Brazilian company with sustainability in the core of its business strategy. We adopted as collection tools in-depth observation, semi-structured interview, and documental research, which were assessed by the thematic analysis of narratives. As results, we identified that the learning process of sustainability occurs in this context in a combination of institutional mechanisms and practices located at the occupational communities. Among those, the safe working practices indicate being capable of enabling the knowledge in practice of the systemic and integrative perspective, carefulness, responsibility, and look to the future, reflecting the assumptions contained in the ideal of sustainability. We also verified that, with the practices, this group has been establishing alliances, building common concepts, and producing and reproducing practices that change the way of learning sustainability.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".