Reflecting on a program of participatory ergonomics interventions: A multiple case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluations of participative ergonomics (PE) interventions have reported mixed results, potentially due to both program and theory deficits. In a multiple case study of four worksites in different companies using a quasi-experimental approach, we examined process, implementation, and effects. The process evaluation was based upon fieldwork and interviews with approximately 90 persons. Implemented changes were documented by PE teams and intensity judged by the research team. The effect evaluation was performed using questionnaire-based measures (physical effort, influence, pain and potential confounders) among cohorts present both before and after the changes (N=258). Ergonomic change teams (ECTs) faced challenges securing employees' time, varying management commitment and significant production pressures. Nevertheless they actively introduced between 10 and 21 changes over 10-20 months of activity. Limited intensity of exposure reduction was observed, resulting in no discernible effects on physical effort or pain among the employees. Potential reasons that may account for limited effects and lessons for workplace parties, practitioners, and intervention researchers are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".