Evaluation of forearm support provided by the Workplace Board on perceived tension, comfort and productivity in pregnant and non-pregnant computer users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of forearm support provided by the Workplace Board on perceived tension, comfort and productivity among pregnant and non-pregnant female computer workers. Ten pregnant and 18 non-pregnant women participated in the study. Participants completed three sets of tension/discomfort questionnaires at two week intervals. The first set was completed prior to any workstation intervention; the second set was completed after two weeks working with an ergonomically adjusted workstation; the third set was completed after two weeks working with the Workplace Board integrated into the office workstation. With the Workplace Board, decreased perceived tension was reported in the left shoulder, wrist and low back in non-pregnant women only. The Board was generally liked by all participants, and increased comfort and productivity in all areas, with the exception of a negative effect on productivity of general office tasks. The board is suitable for integration in most office workstations and for most users, but has no special benefits for pregnant women.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".