MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013979589 · doi:10.1080/15459624.2014.987388

Is Sitting Worse Than Static Standing? How a Gender Analysis Can Move Us Toward Understanding Determinants and Effects of Occupational Standing and Walking

2014· article· en· W2013979589 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Karen Messing, Susan Stock, Julie N. Côté, France Tissot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecJewish Rehabilitation HospitalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Otago
KeywordsSittingHonorOccupational hygieneOccupational safety and healthWork (physics)PsychologyAffect (linguistics)GerontologyEnvironmental healthMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Yant Award was established in 1964 to honor the contributions of William P. Yant, the first president of the American Industrial Hygiene Association. It is presented annually for outstanding contributions in industrial hygiene or allied fields to an individual residing outside the United States. The 2014 award recipient is Dr. Karen Messing, Professor emeritus, Department of Biological Sciences, Université du Québec à Montréal and Researcher, CINBIOSE Research Centre. Gender (socially determined) differences in occupations, employment, and working conditions, task assignments, and work methods that affect exposure to health risks are increasingly documented. Interactions of (biologically influenced) sex differences with workplace parameters may also influence exposure levels. During field studies, ergonomists learn a lot about gender and sex that can be important when generating and testing hypotheses about the mechanisms that link workplace exposures to health outcomes. Prolonged standing is common in North America; almost half (45%) of Québec workers spend more than three-quarters of their working time on their feet and 40% of these cannot sit at will. This posture has been linked to chronic back pain and musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in the lower limbs, but many health professionals suggest workers should stand rather than sit at work. We ask: (1) Given the fact that roughly the same proportion of men and women stand at work, what does a gender-sensitive analysis add to our ability to detect and thus prevent work-related MSDs?; (2) How does ergonomics research inform gender-sensitive analysis of occupational health data?; and (3) What do researchers need to know to orient interventions to improve general working postures? We have sought answers to these questions through collaborative research with specialists in epidemiology, occupational medicine, biomechanics, and physiology, carried out in partnership with public health organisations, community groups, and unions. We conclude that failure to characterize prolonged static standing and to apply gender-sensitive analysis can confuse assessment of musculoskeletal and circulatory effects of working postures. We suggest that prolonged static sitting and standing postures can and should be avoided by changes to workplace organization and environments. Research is needed to define optimal walking speeds and arrive at optimal ratios of sitting, standing, and walking in the workplace.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations48
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental HygieneSame topicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal DisordersFrench-language works237,207