MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116819819 · doi:10.1093/annhyg/meh042

Determinants of Exposure to Metalworking Fluid Aerosol in Small Machine Shops

2004· article· en· W2116819819 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew S. Ross, Kay Teschke, Michael Bräuer, Susan Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Occupational Hygiene · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerosolMetalworkingPersonal protective equipmentOccupational exposureEnvironmental scienceToxicologyMedicineEngineeringMechanical engineeringEnvironmental healthMeteorologyGeographyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to evaluate personal exposure to metalworking fluid (MWF) aerosols in very small machine shops (1-8 machinists per shop) and to investigate workplace factors associated with exposures. A total of 20 willing machine shops in Vancouver, Canada (from 46 eligible shops, 43%) and 88 machinists participated (participation rate for machinists 92%). Most machinists wore two personal sampling trains (an open-faced 37 mm cassette and a PM10 impactor) on each of two full work shifts. Observational data were collected regarding potential determinants of exposure at 15 min intervals throughout each shift. A total of 322 personal samples were taken over 54 days. Mean aerosol exposure was 0.32 mg/m3 (range 0.06-2.19) for the 37 mm cassette samples and 0.27 mg/m3 (range 0.026-3.67) for PM10. Exposures from the two sampler types were highly correlated (R = 0.86). The mean shop-specific ratio comparing exposure from the 37 mm cassette with that from the PM10 sampler was 1.43 and varied significantly across shops, ranging from 0.97 to 2.19. Machine, task and shop characteristics associated with significantly increased aerosol exposure included the proportion of time spent grinding, operating an enclosed computer controlled machine, the presence of welding in the shop for both sampler types and the number of machines using MWF for PM10 samples only. Factors associated with reduced aerosol exposure included machining aluminum, milling, the height (and shape) of the shop roof (for both sample types) and the presence of mechanical shop ventilation (for the 37 mm cassette samples).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations38
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of Occupational HygieneSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207