MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1894707046 · doi:10.3233/wor-2007-00618

Assessment of physical exposures and comparison of exposure definitions in a repetitive sawmill occupation: Trim-saw operator

2007· article· en· W1894707046 on OpenAlexaff
Troy Jones, T. Rajesh Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueWork · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWristUlnar deviationExertionComparabilityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRange of motionPhysical therapyMedicineMathematicsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the physical exposures required to perform a sawmill job associated with a high incidence of upper extremity musculoskeletal injury. Exposure variables are described by multiple posture, exertion and frequency definitions and the comparability of those definitions are examined. Effective industrial prevention efforts require an accurate assessment of risk. Surface electromyography and electrogoniometry were used to quantify the physical exposures of 29 trim-saw operators in four sawmill facilities. Average wrist ranges of motion of 32, 57 and 58 degrees in wrist radial/ulnar deviation, flexion/extension and pronation/supination respectively were required to perform the job. Defining wrist range of motion by the peak postures observed versus those required to perform the primary task resulted in significantly different ranges of motion (p<0.05). Job performance required an average of 33% of maximum voluntary contraction. Repetitions per day ranged from 3,549 to 14,460. Percentage of maximum voluntary contraction was not associated with psychophysical measures of exertion.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorkSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207