MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414685613 · doi:10.15294/jse.v2i2.24291

Analysis Factors Associated with Work Accidents Among House Construction Workers in Karang Ayu

2024· article· en· W4414685613 on OpenAlexaff
Risa Wahyu Putri Kiswanto, Berlian Syiffa Ardana Reswari, Cantika Salya Manikawening Anakita, Danish Ayesha

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Safety Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Occupational safety and healthConstruction industryHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionPublic healthSuicide preventionPoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Globally, work-related injuries are a significant public health and economic issue, with approximately 5-7% of all deaths in industrialized countries caused by work-related injuries. Each year, work accidents cause 350,000 deaths and 270 million non-fatal serious injuries. Due to its high burden of occupational hazards, the construction industry is more at risk than other industries. Compared with workers in different occupations, building construction workers are three to four times more likely to die and twice as likely to be injured than workers in other occupations. This study aims to analyze the factors associated with the incidence of work accidents among house construction workers in Karangayu, Semarang Barat. This study used descriptive qualitative methods, including observation, interviews, and questionnaires. The result of this study is that factors can cause work accidents, such as age, unsafe actions such as not using PPE properly, and worker knowledge, which leads to unsafe actions. Still, in this observation, there are driving factors behind workers' unsafe actions, one of which is the non-compliance of house construction workers in Karangayu, Semarang.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Safety EducationSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ManagementFrench-language works237,207