## 3 Data Source and Analysis
### Analysis of Results  
#### 3.3.1 Weight Correction Analysis  
Based on the weight ranking results obtained by analyzing the weight correction value, we determined that security communication and security awareness accounted for the largest proportion, which is above 6%, as shown in Table 13. Thus, workers should be regularly invited to seminars. They should also be encouraged to share safety experiences, discuss safety methods, and enhance communication among workers. Moreover, some \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **True Score** & **Actual** & **Actual States** & **Predictive Score** & **Prediction Grade** & **Prediction State** & **Is the State Predicted Correctly?** \\ \hline
1 & 0.304 & 2 & Mild risk & 0.265 & 2 & Mild risk & Y \\
2 & 0.391 & 2 & Mild risk & 0.380 & 2 & Mild risk & Y \\
3 & 0.782 & 4 & Severe risk & 0.723 & 3 & Moderate risk & N \\
4 & 0.782 & 4 & Severe risk & 0.720 & 3 & Moderate risk & N \\
5 & 0.304 & 2 & Mild risk & 0.273 & 2 & Mild risk & Y \\
6 & 0.695 & 3 & Moderate risk & 0.729 & 3 & Moderate risk & Y \\
7 & 0.043 & 1 & Security & 0.257 & 2 & Mild risk & N \\
8 & 0.739 & 3 & Moderate risk & 0.680 & 3 & Moderate risk & Y \\
9 & 0.608 & 3 & Moderate risk & 0.685 & 3 & Moderate risk & Y \\
10 & 0.173 & 1 & Security & 0.252 & 2 & Mild risk & N \\
11 & 0.217 & 1 & Security & 0.257 & 2 & Mild risk & N \\
12 & 0.565 & 3 & Moderate risk & 0.690 & 3 & Moderate risk & Y \\
13 & 0.652 & 3 & Moderate risk & 0.728 & 3 & Moderate risk & Y \\
14 & 0.260 & 2 & Mild risk & 0.286 & 2 & Mild risk & Y \\
15 & 0.391 & 2 & Mild risk & 0.401 & 2 & Mild risk & Y \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: Results of model testing. Figure 4: The variation in mean square error. experts should be invited to share safety knowledge to improve the safety awareness of construction workers. Security communication and security awareness are followed by protection measures, group cohesion, worker sentiment, worker influence, safety atmosphere, construction conditions, safety input, and safety attitude. The weight of these eight indicators is between 5% and 6%, and the impact on workers' unsafe behavior cannot be underestimated. On the one hand, these factors are mostly human factors, which require great attention. The relevant indicators should be monitored as key indicators. On the other hand, improving a safe environment involves vigorously publicizing the safety protection slogan and conducting regular environmental checks to protect workers and ensure their safety. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Factor** & **Weight** & **Criterion Layer** & **Factor** & **Weight** & **Criterion Layer** \\ \hline Safety communication & 0.062 & Management factor & Safety regulation & 0.044 & Management factor \\ Security awareness & 0.060 & Human factor & Age of workers & 0.044 & Human factor \\ Protection & 0.058 & Environmental factor & Workers’ fatigue & 0.042 & Human factor \\ \hline Group cohesion & 0.054 & Management factor & Security leadership & 0.042 & Management factor \\ Workers’ emotions & 0.053 & Human factor & Work experience & 0.040 & Human factor \\ Workmate impact & 0.052 & Human factor & Management level & 0.040 & Management factor \\ Safety climate & 0.052 & Environmental factor & Safety supervision & 0.038 & Management factor \\ Construction & 0.051 & Environmental factor & Safety compliance & 0.038 & Human factor \\ \hline Safety input & 0.050 & Management factor & Security culture & 0.036 & Management factor \\ Security attitude & 0.050 & Human factor & Skills level & 0.027 & Human factor \\ Workers’ character & 0.046 & Human factor & Safety education & 0.021 & Management factor \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 13: The revised weight.