MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Evaluation of the NIOSH Lifting Equation: A Psychophysical and Biomechanical Investigation

2002· article· en· W1602678423 on OpenAlexaff
Farag E. Elfeituri, S.M. Taboun

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsMultiplier (economics)Poison controlLift (data mining)Occupational safety and healthStructural engineeringEngineeringMedicineComputer scienceEnvironmental healthData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the results of psychophysical and biomechanical experiments, NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) Recommended Weight Limit (RWL), the Lifting Index (LI), the form of the asymmetry multiplier, and the criterion for compression force were investigated. Analysis of the results indicated a significant difference between the NIOSH RWL and the reported Maximum Acceptable Weight of Lift (MAWL). Contrary to the NIOSH lifting equation, the form of the asymmetry multiplier was found to be non-linear. The overall average of peak compression force on the L5/S1 was 3685 N. Fifty-eight percent of all compression forces reported in the biomechanical experiment were found to exceed the suggested 3400 N set by NIOSH guidelines. These results support previous research findings on the validity of NIOSH guidelines.

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)0.001
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 score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations56
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Occupational Safety and ErgonomicsSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207