MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Examining RULA’s Postural Scoring System With Selected Physiological and Psychophysiological Measures

2003· article· en· W1492675095 on OpenAlexaff
Leslie J.K. Fountain

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPoison controlPhysical therapyPsychologyEngineeringMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) survey is a posture-sampling tool used specifically to examine the level of risk associated with upper limb disorders of individual workers. This paper examines the relationship between RULA's postural scoring system and measures of surface electromyography (EMG), self-reports of discomfort, and job attitude questionnaires. Twenty participants each performed a 30-min typing task on a computer in 3 working postures based on RULA's scoring system. A statistically significant difference was found only in perceived discomfort. The perceived discomfort results demonstrated that RULA was able to identify "high risk" postures. The next question we need to ask is, does perceived discomfort result in tissue damage, or does tissue damage yield discomfort?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Occupational Safety and ErgonomicsSame topicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal DisordersFrench-language works237,207