MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1652635603 · doi:10.3233/wor-131687

Ergonomic and usability ratings of helmets and head-mounted personal protective equipment in industry

2014· article· en· W1652635603 on OpenAlexaff
Alison Godwin, Tammy Eger

Bibliographic record

VenueWork · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSafety Warnings and Signage
Canadian institutionsLaurentian UniversityHealth Sciences North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonal protective equipmentUsabilityHuman factors and ergonomicsApplied psychologyEngineeringAeronauticsPoison controlHuman–computer interactionPsychologyComputer scienceMedical emergencyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Anecdotal evidence from industry suggests that those working as arborists prefer to use minimal brim style, climbing helmets rather than traditional forestry helmets. In the mining industry, workers prefer wireless, LED cap lamps. Workers cite better comfort, better ability to see their work and better ventilation as reasons to use those helmets and cap lamps. Safety personnel in the industry would like to base future helmet decisions and requirements on a complete understanding of the ergonomic and safety issues of all available head-borne equipment. OBJECTIVE: Previous research has found that helmet design, head load and head/neck posture can influence the amount of neck discomfort experienced by users. Specific features of helmets and head-mounted personal protective equipment (PPE) in various industries have been changing to reflect ergonomic design principles. A series of three studies were conducted to evaluate usability and preference of new style cap lamps and helmet brims. PARTICIPANTS: PARTICIPANTS (n=10-16) were recruited primarily from undergraduate students, and each study represents a different group of novice participants. METHODS: Two different courses that included a tunnel were used in the first two studies to evaluate cap lamp styles and wireless cap lamps, while a simulated arborist task was used in the final study to evaluate helmet brim. Measures of ergonomic and discomfort questionnaires were analysed for this paper. RESULTS: The first cap lamp study was able to conclude that LED lamps are preferred over incandescent lamps, while the second study demonstrated that users prefer a multi-directional beam, and adjustability features of the cap lamp. In the final study, participants who must perform extreme overhead tasks prefer a helmet with a minimal brim. CONCLUSIONS: Additional research is warranted to determine whether actual, industry workers demonstrate the same preferences for these PPE items.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorkSame topicSafety Warnings and SignageFrench-language works237,207