Enhancing construction workers’ health and safety: mechanisms for implementing Construction 4.0 technologies in construction organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The construction industry is notorious for high risks and accident rates, prompting professionals to adopt emerging technologies for improved construction workers’ health and safety (CWHS). Despite the recognized benefits, the practical implementation of these technologies in safety management within the Construction 4.0 era remains nascent. This study aims to investigate the mechanisms influencing the implementation of Construction 4.0 technologies (C4.0TeIm) to enhance CWHS in construction organizations. Design/methodology/approach Drawing upon integrated institutional theory, the contingency resource-based view of firms and the theory of planned behavior, this study developed and tested an integrated C4.0TeIm-CWHS framework. The framework captures the interactions among key factors driving C4.0TeIm to enhance CWHS within construction organizations. Data were collected via a questionnaire survey among 91 construction organizations and analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling to test the hypothesized relationships. Findings The results reveal that: (1) key C4.0TeIm areas are integrative and centralized around four areas, such as artificial intelligence and 3D printing, Internet of Things and extended reality; and (2) external coercive and normative forces, internal resource and capability, business strategy, technology competency and management (BST), organizational culture and use intention (UI) of C4.0 technologies, collectively influence C4.0TeIm-CWHS. The findings confirm the pivotal roles of BST and UI as mediators fostering positive organizational behaviors related to C4.0TeIm-CWHS. Practical implications Practically, it offers actionable insights for policymakers to optimize technology integration in construction firms, promoting industrial advancement while enhancing workforce well-being. Originality/value The novel C4.0TeIm-CWHS framework contributes to the theoretical discourses on safety management within the C4.0 paradigm by offering insights into internal strategic deployment and compliance challenges in construction organizations.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".