MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411360255 · doi:10.11113/jest.v8.188

False Work Accident: Forensic Engineering Investigation Approach

2025· article· en· W4411360255 on OpenAlexaff
Balya Mulkan Wijaya, Mohd Nazri Mat Jarid, Nur Athirah Diyana Mohammad Yusof, Mohammad Lui Juhari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Energy and Safety Technology (JEST) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForensic scienceAccident (philosophy)Work (physics)Forensic engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringMedicineMechanical engineeringPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On June 19, 2021, at 7:15 PM, the collapse of a falsework structure at a construction site in Selangor caused one fatality, injured another worker, and severely damaged the falsework. Prior to the collapse, five workers were engaged in pouring concrete into a formwork box at channel P116R. Method of forensic engineering investigation as such by triangulation of approach visual inspections and measurements were conducted on the components used for the falsework structure. A review of technical documents was performed, focusing on the design specifications, engineering drawings, and procedures for the installation of the falsework. A structural analysis was carried out based on the technical data obtained. This study investigates the collapse of a falsework structure at a construction site in Selangor, resulting in one fatality and one injury. Forensic analysis revealed that the structure failed under a concrete load of 32.08 cubic meters (50.74 kN/m²), exceeding its capacity. The investigation included onsite inspections, structural analysis, and review of technical documents, concluding that inadequate bracing and joint integrity were primary causes of failure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0100.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Energy and Safety Technology (JEST)→Same topicOccupational Health and Safety Research→French-language works237,207→