Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective graph analysis uncovers recurring cross-trade accident patterns across 29,463 construction records, highlighting dual-layer targets for data-driven safety planning.
Accident knowledge graphs can represent rich relational structures. However, interpreting recurring accident-pattern associations remains difficult when analysis relies on a single scale. Macro-level analysis tends to remain descriptive, whereas microlevel mining can be confounded by globally frequent regularities, blurring trade- and context-specific differences. To address this gap, this study proposes an ontology-based accident knowledge graph, a macro-to-micro framework, and models 29,463 accident records (2019–2025) as an event-centric heterogeneous graph. Each record is represented as an ordered full-chain attribute combination to support reproducible pathway-pattern comparison. Importantly, the proposed pathways are not intended to establish causal chains; rather, they represent frequency-supported association patterns among structured accident attributes. At the macro stage, PageRank-based centrality and total variation (TV) distance screening align comparison baselines, and robustness checks verify the stability of work-type selection for micro analysis. At the micro stage, context strata enable like-for-like comparisons to examine persistence and differentiation of pathway patterns given unfiltered versus condition-fixed settings. Results identify a cross-work-type backbone aligned with temporary facilities and installation/dismantling phases and clarify conditional pivots by workforce size and project progress rate. By linking global network signals with context-specific pathway patterns, this study provides a two-layer safety-planning logic that distinguishes consistent monitoring targets from context-sensitive control priorities and offers an interpretable, stability-oriented foundation for data-driven construction safety management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: