8287376 Insights from 10 years of research on the effectiveness of occupational health and safety management system programs: an updated analysis of the certificate of recognition program in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Building on a decade of research on the effectiveness of occupational health and safety management system certification programs across Canada, the objective of this study was to conduct an updated evaluation of the Certificate of Recognition (COR) program on firm work injury rates in British Columbia (BC), Canada, and determine if COR firms are associated with greater injury rate reductions compared to similar non-COR firms, and whether the findings differ between internally and externally audited firms. Material and Methods Using COR registration, firm-, and claim-level data from the workers’ compensation board of BC (WorkSafeBC), the effect of becoming newly COR-certified on firm injury rates was assessed using a matched difference-in-differences study design with population-averaged negative binomial regression models, overall, by audit type (internal vs. external), and sector. Results A total of 3,100 certified firms were matched with 2,964 non-certified firms during the years 2010 to 2021. Firms that became certified experienced a greater reduction in their lost-time injury rate during the years after their first certification year (RR: 0.91; 95 CI: 0.85-0.98). Stratified analysis showed that the overall effectiveness was being primarily driven by large, externally audited, firms in the manufacturing sector (RR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.64-0.89). Imprecisely estimated reductions were observed for small, internally audited firms in transportation (RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.57-1.18), and primary resources sectors (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.62-1.16). Conclusion While the COR program is still effective in reducing firm injury rates, its effectiveness has diminished over time and is not equal across all sectors and sizes of firm. Continual assessment and improvement of the program is important to ensure ongoing impact. Furthermore, through using more rigorous cohort restrictions and matching strategies, the findings suggest that effectiveness observed in previous evaluations may have been driven by the selection process of firms into the COR program.
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 | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".