RT Journal Article
T1 Correspondence Model Of Occupational Accidents
A1 Conte, Juan C
A1 Rubio, Emilio A
A1 Garcia, Ana I
A1 Cano Sevilla, Francisco Jose
AB We present a new generalized model for the diagnosis and prediction of accidents among the Spanish workforce. Based on observational data of the accident rate in all Spanish companies over eleven years (7,519,732 accidents), we classified them in a new risk-injury contingency table (19x19). Through correspondence analysis, we obtained a structure composed of three axes whose combination identifies three separate risk and injury groups, which we used as a general Spanish pattern. The most likely or frequent relationships between the risk and injuries identified in the pattern facilitated the decision-making process in companies at an early stage of risk assessment. Each risk-injury group has its own characteristics, which are understandable within the phenomenological framework of the accident. The main advantages of this model are its potential application to any other country and the feasibility of contrasting different country results. One limiting factor, however, is the need to set a common classification framework for risks and injuries to enhance comparison, a framework that does not exist today. The model aims to manage work-related accidents automatically at any level.
PB Acad Brasileira De Ciencias
SN 0001-3765
YR 2010
FD 2010-12
LK https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/42105
UL https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/42105
LA eng
NO AGUILERA AM. 2001. Tablas de contingencia bidimensionales.Madrid: La Muralla, Col. Cuadernos de Estadística15: 23–36.AGUILERA AM. 2006. Modelización de tablas de contingenciamultidimensionales. Madrid: La Muralla, Col.Cuadernos de Estadística 33: 25–28.AMENDOLA A. 2002. Recent paradigms for risk informeddecision making. Safety Sci 40: 17–30.BARAM M. 2009. Globalization and workplace hazards indeveloping nations. Safety Sci 47: 756–766.BARIL R, BERTHELETTE D AND MASSICOTTE P. 2003.Early return towork of injuredworkers: multidimensionalpatterns of individual and organizational factors. SafetySci 41: 277–300.BECK U. 1999. World risk society. Cambridge: Polity Press.BENZÉCRI J. 1992. Correspondence analysis handbook.New York: Marcel Decker.CONTE JC, CANO F, GARCIA AI AND RUBIO E. 2008.Interpretación de las relaciones intragrupales de riesgosy lesiones mediante análisis cluster jerárquico. Rev MatTeor Aplic 15: 175–186.CONTE JC, MARCOS G, GARCIA AI AND RUBIO E. 2007.Análisis del problema empírico de identificación delriesgo. Cuad Bioest Aplic Infor 17: 12–25.DOUGLAS M AND WILDAVSKY A. 1982. Risk and culture.An essay on the selection of technical and environmentaldangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.FINE W. 1973. Mathematical evaluations for controllinghazards. Georgia: Academic Press, Selected Reading inSafety, p. 1–22.FRIJTERS A AND SWUSTE P. 2008. Safety assessment indesign and preparation phase. Safety Sci 46: 272–281.GARCIA AI, CONTE JC, RUBIO E AND PEREZ A. 2009.Accidente laboral. ACSOM una nueva orientación parala gestión automática del riesgo. An Sist Sanit Navar32: 23–34.GIDDENS A. 1994. Les conséquences de la modernité. Paris:L’Harmattan.GREENACRE M AND BLASIUS J. 1994. Correspondenceanalysis in social science. Recent developments and applications.San Diego: Academic Press, p. 141–161.GULDENMUND FW. 2000. The nature of safety culture: areview of theory and research. Safety Sci 34: 215–257.HAIR JF, ANDERSON RE, TATHAM RL AND BLACK WC.1999. Análisis Multivariante. Madrid: Prentice HallIberia SRL, 5th ed., p. 575–578.HAMMER W. 1994. Unfallgefährdung und verhütung beimGehen, Laufen, Tragen, Schieben und Ziehen im landwirtschaftlichenBetrieb. Safety Sci 17: 117–143.HAND D, MANNILA H AND SMITH P. 2001. Principles ofdata mining. London: Bradford Book, MIT Press.JOARISTI L AND LIZASOAIN L. 1999. Análisis de correspondencias.Madrid: La Muralla, Col. Cuadernos de Estadística5: 35–52.KJELLÉN U AND SKLET S. 1995. Integrating analyses ofthe risk of occupational accidents into the design process.Part I: A review of types of acceptance criteria and riskanalysis methods. Safety Sci 18: 215–227.KÖRVERS P AND SONNEMANS P. 2008. Accidents: A discrepancybetween indicators and facts! Safety Sci 46:1067–1077.LAFLAMME L, DÖÖS M AND BACKSTRÖM T. 1991. Identifyingaccidents patterns using the FAC and HAC: theirapplication to accidents at the engine workshops of anautomobile and truck factory. Safety Sci 14: 13–33.LEVESON N. 2004. A new accident model for engineeringsafer systems. Safety Sci 42: 237–270.NACHREINER F, NICKEL P AND MEYER I. 2006. Humanfactors in process control systems: The design of humanmachine interfaces. Safety Sci 44: 5–26.NICHOLSON A. 1998. Analysis of spatial distributions ofaccidents. Safety Sci 31: 71–91.RASMUSSEN J. 1997. Risk management in a dynamic society:a modelling problem. Safety Sci 27: 183–213.REAL JE. 2001. Escalamiento multidimensional. Madrid: LaMuralla, Col. Cuadernos de Estadística 14: 8–14.ROUHIAINEN V. 1992. QUASA: A method for assessing thequality of safety analysis. Safety Sci 15: 155–172.RUBIO E. 1983. Estadística para médicos: fundamentos.Universidad de Zaragoza, Cátedra de Bioestadística,Facultad de Medicina, p. 119–122.SARI M, SELCUK S, KARPUZ C AND DUZGUN S. 2009.Stochastic modelling of accident risks associated with anunderground coal mine in Turkey. Safety Sci 47: 78–87.SCHROEDER-FRECHETTE K. 1999. Risk. In: CRAIG E ANDFLORIDI L. Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.London: Routledge.VAN DUIJNE F, VAN AKEN D AND SCHOUTEN G. 2008.Considerations in developing complete and quantifiedmethods for risk assessment. Safety Sci 46: 245–254.WILLIAMSON A, FEYER A AND CAIRNS DR. 1996. Industrydifferences in accident causation. Safety Sci 24: 1–12.An Acad
DS Docta Complutense
RD 7 may 2024