O-257 A CONCEPT ANALYSIS OF SUSTAINABILITY IN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction In 1992, the Rio Conference laid out roles for different stakeholders in implementing sustainable development. More recently, the International Labour Organization (ILO) published a strategy to promote sustainable enterprises. With increased legislation in numerous countries, the concept of “sustainability” is widely used yet with no clear definition of the concept within occupational health and safety (OHS). The aim of this study was to clarify and conceptualize the concept of “sustainability” in the field of OHS (inclusive of disability prevention). Methods This study followed the eight-step concept analysis approach proposed by Walker and Avant (2011). A search in nine bibliographic databases were performed using key terms related with work, sustainability, and health and safety. The search was limited to literature in French and in English published from 2000 onwards. Moreover, grey literature was sought from websites of 32 research institutions part of the Sheffield group. Results A total of 272 references (174 scientific and 98 grey literature) were retained. Analysis highlighted various uses of the concept such as “sustainable prevention of musculoskeletal disorders or “sustainable return to work”. The presentation will present a synthesis on the different uses and definitions of sustainability found in references. Discussion Sustainability is a concept widely used in OHS but few references present definitions. Workplaces need more criteria to orient their actions. Conclusion This study provides a better understanding of the concept of “sustainability” in OHS, and identifies approaches that could potentially guide workplace practices.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".