The physical demands of electrical utilities work in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the physical demands associated with electrical utilities work in North America and how they influence the level of thermal and cardiovascular strain experienced. Three common job categories were monitored as they are normally performed in thirty-two electrical utility workers: (i) Ground Work (n = 11), (ii) Bucket Work (n = 9), and (iii) Manual Pole Work (n = 12). Video analysis was performed to determine the proportion of the work monitoring period (duration: 187 ± 104 min) spent at different levels of physical effort (i.e., rest as well as light, moderate and heavy effort). Core and skin temperatures as well as heart rate were measured continuously. On average, workers spent 35.9 ± 15.9, 36.8 ± 17.8, 24.7 ± 12.8, and 2.6 ± 3.3% of the work period at rest and performing work classified as light, moderate, and heavy physical effort, respectively. Moreover, a greater proportion of the work period was spent performing heavy work in Ground Work (1.6 ± 1.4%) relative to Bucket Work (0.0 ± 0.0%; P<0.01) and in Manual Pole Climbing (5.5 ± 3.6%) in comparison to both other work job (both P≤0.03). Furthermore, the proportion of time spent during work classified as heavy physical effort was positively correlated to the mean (r = 0.51, P<0.01) and peak (r = 0.42, P = 0.02) core temperatures achieved during the work period as well as the mean heart rate response (presented as a percentage of heart rate reserve; r = 0.40, P = 0.03). Finally, mean and peak core temperatures and mean heart rate responses increased from the first to the second half of the work shift; however, no differences in the proportion of the work spent at the different intensity classifications were observed. We show that Manual Pole Work is associated with greater levels of physical effort compared to Ground or Bucket Work. Moreover, we suggest that the proportion of time spent performing work classified as heavy physical exertion is related to the level of thermal and cardiovascular strain experienced and that workers may not be employing self-pacing as a strategy to manage their level of physiological strain.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".