Evaluación del sistema de gestión en seguridad y salud en el trabajo de la empresa PROVEFRUT S.A. De la ciudad de Latacunga, Propuesta de un sistema alternativo.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Thesis work develops a study for the Implementation of a System of \nAdministration in Security and Occupational Health using the SASST in \nPROVEFRUT S.A., with this work the company wants to develop a System of \nAdministration to eliminate, and diminish the daily risks. \nThe proposal is an investment for the company, being it economic, viable, current, \nsecure, reliable and efficient for the implementation of a System of \nAdministration in the three levels of Security and Health in any labor environment \nthat is the Human Resource and Technical Administration. \nThe chapters described in this thesis are in function of the System to be \nimplemented having in the first chapter the clear basis that this study pursues to \nget to the operation of the System of the Security and Health in the Work. The \nsecond chapter treats about the SASST model; it was given by Risks of the Work \nof the IESS contemplating the 3 levels of Administration that should be applied in \nthe Administration for the Security and Health in the Work. \nIn the third chapter is carried out the analysis and the diagnostic of the Security \nand Health in the plant of PROVEFRUT S.A. to evaluate all the existent risks \nwith the respective Map of Risks, there are recommendations to avoid or to \ndiminish the most outstanding risks in the company, besides in this chapter it is \ndescribed the sinister that the company used to have such us accidents and \noccupational illnesses so that there is a yearly comparison and the evolution can \nbe seen when it is implemented. \nIn the quarter chapter the proposal is already made with the whole methodology to \nbe applied in the Administration of the System of the Security and Health in the \nWork. The way in which all the registrations are taken; the practices that are \ntaken to eliminate or to diminish the risks of the company. \nThe result of this system is taking care of the workers so that they are developed \nin a sure and healthy atmosphere, with this the companies that applies it will be \nrewarded in a constant growth and continuous improvement of their production, \nbecause a company with responsibility in Security and Health for its workers \ngives sources of work without risks.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".