MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W603382407

Developing Best-Practice Guidelines for Improving Bus Operator Health and Retention. Part I: A Transit Workplace Health Protection and Promotion Practitioner’s Guide, Part II: Final Research Report

2014· article· en· W603382407 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robin Mary Gillespie, Xinge Wang, Tia Brown

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransit (satellite)Return on investmentHealth promotionBusinessAbsenteeismWorkplace health promotionPaymentWork (physics)Investment (military)Transport engineeringPublic transportPublic healthFinanceMedicineNursingEngineeringEconomicsManagementPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transit bus operators work in a challenging environment that can lead to negative health outcomes for the operators and high costs for transit agencies due to health care costs, absenteeism, high levels of turnover, and workers’ compensation payments. This report addresses some of the health and safety issues common throughout the transit industry. The report describes the approaches that transit organizations in the United States and Canada have taken to address the health problems faced by transit employees, including identification of many common problems and detailed practices. The report includes a Practitioner’s Guide (Part I) and an Evaluation and Return on Investment (ROI) template titled, Transit Operator Workplace Health Protection and Promotion Planning, Evaluation, and Return on Investment (ROI) (available online) for use in implementing and carrying out transit-specific programs to protect the health of bus operators and other employees. The final research report (Part II) includes the background, research approach, literature review, case examples, and detailed case studies.

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)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.122
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.122
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0090.006
Research integrity0.0100.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.016

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 head0.506
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.076 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOccupational Health and Safety Research→French-language works237,207→