Job Safety Analysis (JSA) and pre-task planning can benefit from prior incident records, yet historical accident data is often stored as unstructured narratives that are difficult to consult at the point of planning. A novel framework centered on large language models (LLMs) for highway construction safety reporting and planning is proposed as a foundation for future agentic applications, prioritizing deterministic, local inferencing. The first aim is to enable classification and quality scoring of incident narratives for existing and future reporting purposes. The second is to evaluate retrieval of relevant historical accidents, related imagery, and trusted industry documents for incorporation into daily safety plans. Neural probes were trained to classify incidents along four multiclass and two binary Occupational Injury and Illness Classification System (OIICS) fields and to derive an overall quality score, evaluated on a test set of over 15,000 narratives and a held-out set of 100 author-labeled records, benchmarked against a majority-vote LLM ensemble. The retrieval of historical accidents, reference imagery, and industry documents was benchmarked across embedding models using standard information retrieval metrics. OIICS classification reached 75% held-out accuracy, though the two binary flags were degenerate. The quality score, while meaningful on one database, was distorted on out-of-distribution fatalities in the held-out dataset. Accident retrieval recovered relevant incidents far above chance, performing best on lexically distinct construction activities. On document question answering, an open-weight decoder embedding model surpassed proprietary models. Overall, this work provides a new framework rooted in local inferencing and text embedding models for future agentic applications, with emphasis on bridging external data to JSA reports.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of AI Safety Assistant (AISA) Framework
Figure 2: Overview of MLP architecture for predicting OIICS accident codes
Figure 3: Probability density function plotted for each OIICS classification model on SIR test set
OIICS Model
No. Classes ( C )
Avg. Prob ( pˉ )
Acc@1
Acc@3
NDCG@10
MRR@10
Event
49
0.76±0.19
0.753
0.949
0.889
0.854
Source
79
0.72±0.24
0.694
0.876
0.838
0.795
Nature
41
0.84±0.16
0.815
0.978
0.923
0.896
Part of Body
46
0.85±0.19
0.843
0.960
0.927
0.904
Hospitalized (Binary)
2
0.93±0.12
0.931
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Amputation (Binary)
2
0.99±0.04
0.989
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Table 1: OIICS classification performance summary on SIR test set ( n=15,439 )
OIICS Category
MLP
gpt-4o-mini
gpt-5-mini
gemini-2.5-flash-lite
gemini-3.5-flash-lite
Event
54.0
57.0
56.0
43.0
64.0
Source
62.0
6.00
20.0
36.0
44.0
Nature
60.0
37.0
42.0
35.0
46.0
Part of Body
69.0
19.0
29.0
28.0
36.0
Hospitalized (Binary)
37.0
37.0
44.0
83.0
82.0
Amputation (Binary)
61.0
21.0
96.0
92.0
100
Table 2: Random sample agreement over held-out incidents from IMIS ( n=100 )
Metric
SIR (test)
IMIS (237310)
IMIS (sample)
Records
15,439
1,197
100
Quality mean
0.812
0.811
0.802
Quality median
0.832
0.750
0.750
Quality std. dev.
0.112
0.171
0.171
Quality min / max
0.000 / 0.997
0.233 / 1.00
0.436 / 1.00
% scoring ≥ 0.90
20%
42%
40%
Table 3: Quality scoring statistics for test and held-out datasets
Figure 4: Example saliency output and OIICS predictions for accident narrative from IMIS
Model
MAP
MRR
NDGC@10
Recall@10
Recall@100
text-embedding-3-large
0.277
0.525
0.357
0.231
0.615
text-embedding-3-small
0.217
0.456
0.300
0.192
0.568
Qwen-Embedding-0.6b
0.175
0.442
0.286
0.138
0.489
nomic-embed-text-v1.5
0.173
0.412
0.253
0.155
0.470
all-MiniLM-L6-v2
0.161
0.374
0.242
0.172
0.462
Table 4: Averaged statistics for incident retrieval over 46 job activities
Figure 5: Retrieved imagery for vehicle intrusion accidents based on similarity score
Model
Acc@1
Acc@10
MRR@10
NDGC@10
MAP@100
text-embedding-3-large
0.334
0.733
0.459
0.525
0.468
text-embedding-3-small
0.358
0.758
0.484
0.550
0.492
Qwen-Embedding-0.6b
0.451
0.789
0.562
0.617
0.562
nomic-embed-text-v1.5
0.320
0.647
0.421
0.475
0.430
all-MiniLM-L6-v2
0.294
0.605
0.389
0.441
0.399
Table 5: Retrieval metrics for parsed industry documents and synthetic questions ( n=6,214 )
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) Guangzhou, China · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology(Guangzhou) Guangzhou, China · School of Management Northwest Polytechnical University Xi’an Xi’an, China +4