A Bayesian network model integrating organizational, individual and psychological factors for strengthening construction worker safety behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. Construction worker safety behavior (CWSB) may be affected by a confluence of multilevel and interrelated factors. Cultivating and maintaining CWSB is vital for improving construction safety. Current studies focus on organization-level or individual-level CWSB antecedents. However, few studies have examined the influence of psychological factors on CWSB, thereby reducing the joint effects of multilevel factors on CWSB. Methods. To determine effective strategies for strengthening CWSB, this study adopted the Bayesian network technique to explore the interrelationships between CWSB and its antecedent factors. A Bayesian belief network model was developed and trained with data collected from Chinese construction workers, which connected organizational, individual and psychological factors with CWSB. Results. According to the sensitivity analysis, safety knowledge, safety climate and psychological capital are the three most significant influencing factors for CWSB. A combined strategy that enhances safety knowledge, safety climate and communication competence simultaneously is the most effective option for strengthening CWSB. The validation and robustness of the network showed good accuracy for safety behavior judgment. Conclusion. This study proposes an alternative way to improve safety behavior by identifying its interactive causes and illustrates the importance of initiating systematic safety measures, which may help to mitigate the problem of safety plateau.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".