HUMAN FACTORS TOOL USE AMONG SWEDISH ERGONOMISTS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on a preliminary analysis of interviews conducted with Swedish ergonomists (SE). The study is using the theme of ‘tools’ to explore how ergonomists work on a daily basis. It was found that SEs often practice ergonomics as part of a ‘treatment’ process. Most SEs use their professional judgement when assessing and complement this with checklists, pictures and questionnaires. More sophisticated quantitative tools are less used. SEs who are internal employees, rather than external service providers, seem to be more able to participate in new design activities and to engage in follow-up on changes. SE’s ‘patient’ focus may pose a challenge to participating in design processes where stakeholders tend to have a ‘systems’ focus. This research is currently being extended to include Canadian ergonomists as well as industrial engineers in both countries.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it