The Working Environment and Health Of Specialists Working with Computers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The survey on working environment and health of specialists working with computers was accomplished in Lithuania in 2011. In the survey participated 204 specialists working with computers at the offices, at small and medium sized business companies. Chi-square test was used and the significance level p ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. The study revealed as about one-third (33 %) respondents work with computer all working day, 26% work 4 hours, and 24% work 6 hours per day. Men and women work with computer similar number of hours per day.Most of specialists working with computers (60%) use modern computer chair with modifying elements. Almost one-third (29%) respondents think that their chair is uncomfortable. 24% respondents use the working table with unsuitable high, 31% use the working table with too small area and insufficient space. Only quarter (25%) specialists working with computers work at very good illumination, and 55% - at good illumination. Significantly more men than women use modern computer chair (p=0.035). The computer equipment at men‘s table are located more convenient than at women‘s (p=0.046). Nearly half (43%) workers with computers are disturbed at work by strangers, and 18% - by noise. To concentrate and work for men disturb noise, and for women disturb noise and strangers. Physical discomfort could be reduced by using working chair with castors, working chair with the ability to change the heigth of the chair, and the chair with elbow-rests. Article in Lithuanian doi:10.5200/sm-hs.2012.076
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".