Optimising sampling strategies: components of low-back EMG variability in five heavy industries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Direct/ measurement of work activities is costly, so researchers need to distribute resources efficiently to elucidate the relationships between exposures and back injury. METHODS: This study used data from full-shift electromyography (EMG; N=133) to develop three exposure metrics: mean, 90th percentile and cumulative EMG. For each metric, the components of variance were calculated between- and within-subject, and between-group for four different grouping schemes: grouping by industry (construction, forestry, transportation, warehousing and wood products), by company, by job and by quintiles based on exposures ranked by jobs within industries. Attenuation and precision of simulated exposure-response relationships were calculated for each grouping scheme to determine efficient sampling strategies. RESULTS: As expected, grouping based on exposure quintiles had the highest between-group variances and lowest attenuation, demonstrating the lowest possible attenuation with this data. CONCLUSION: There is potential for grouping schemes to reduce attenuation, but precision losses should be considered and whenever possible empirical data should be employed to select potential exposure grouping schemes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".