Relationship between the margin of manoeuvre and the return to work after a long-term absence due to a musculoskeletal disorder: an exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The application of the margin of manoeuvre (MM) concept in work rehabilitation is new. It allows for variations in both health status and work demands, and the interaction between the two, to be taken into account. The objective of this exploratory study was to document the relationship between the presence of an MM in the workplace and the return to work (RTW), after a long-term absence. METHODS: This study used the data collected during an earlier study that sought to identify the dimensions and indicators of the MM. The data were analysed on three levels, and the convergences and divergences in the MM indicators and dimensions in relation to the RTW were grouped accordingly. RESULTS: Eleven workers and five clinicians participated in this study. The results support the proposition that the presence of a sufficient MM in the workplace is associated with RTW of individuals at the end of a rehabilitation programme despite a long-term absence (n = 6), and conversely, that its absence would appear to be associated with a non-return to work (n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: A better understanding of this concept will help further the development of a tool to assist clinicians in their task of assessing a worker's capacity to return to a given job.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".