When work stays in the family: Parent–child employment configurations, safety communication, and young workers’ injury risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study examines how specific parent-child employment configurations shape family safety communication and injury risk among young workers in family-owned businesses. METHOD: Drawing on cross-domain multiplex theory (Methot et al., 2024), we analyze survey data from 2,275 young workers (M age = 16.45; 49.9% female) in Ontario, Canada, distinguishing among four relational work arrangements: working for parents, working with parents, working both for and with parents, and working neither for nor with parents. RESULTS: Although thicker multiplex ties were expected to strengthen safety communication and reduce injury risk, working for parents was associated with less frequent family safety communication, and safety communication did not mediate the relationship between work configuration and lost-time injury. However, young workers who worked for or both for and with their parents were significantly more likely to report work-related injuries than those working outside of family relationships. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: These findings challenge assumptions about the protective nature of family business employment, illustrate how relational structures can both enable and constrain safety communication, and highlight the need for targeted safety supports for higher-risk parent-child work arrangements.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".