Work Schedules and Sleep Patterns of Railroad Maintenance of Way Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Office of Research and Development sponsored a project to study the work schedules and sleep patterns of U.S. railroad maintenance of way (MOW) workers and to examine the relationship between these schedules and level of alertness of the individuals working the schedules. The methodology for this study was a survey of a random sample of currently working U.S. MOW workers who completed a background survey and kept a daily log for 2 weeks. MOW workers are a predominantly healthy male population. They work either production (construction) or non-production (maintenance) jobs. Within each of these categories, some jobs involve work on track infrastructure and others involve work on bridges and buildings. Both production and non-production workers get the same amount of nighttime sleep but their sleep on workdays is far less than U.S. adult norms. While 39 percent of U.S. adults get less than 7 hours of sleep on workdays, 66 percent of MOW workers have this amount of sleep. Nearly a quarter of non-production MOW workers and 16 percent of production workers experienced start time variability at least once during the study period, most likely as a result of an emergency call or unscheduled work period. Many MOW jobs require travel on personal time to an out-of-town lodging or rally point. Overall, 24 percent reported this type of travel. The study examined several possible explanatory factors for daytime alertness levels. While the correlations were statistically significant, the relationships were weak. Based on the experience of this study, several methodological changes are suggested for future studies of this type.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".