MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157605459 · doi:10.3233/wor-131688

Shouldering the load: A review of Joan Stevenson's work on occupational lifting and design evaluation of load carriage equipment

2014· review· en· W2157605459 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick A. Costigan, Evelyn Morin, Susan A. Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueWork · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersCanadian Natural Resources Limited
KeywordsWork (physics)HarmClothingEngineeringProcess (computing)Load bearingOperations managementApplied psychologyRisk analysis (engineering)Operations researchComputer sciencePsychologyBusinessMechanical engineeringSocial psychologyStructural engineeringLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: In this paper, Dr. Joan Stevenson's work on assessment of the effects of lifting, supporting and transporting loads is reviewed. A defining attribute of this work is the use of objective, biomechanical measures as the basis from which a fuller understanding of all factors affecting worker performance can be obtained, and how such performance should be measured and evaluated. METHODS: The central objectives and conclusions of Dr. Stevenson's research programs spanning the years from 1985 through 2012 are summarized and discussed in terms of an overall research trajectory. CONCLUSIONS: The guiding principle of Dr. Stevenson's work is to reduce the potential harm to which workers are exposed through the development of bona fide occupational standards, a better understanding of risk factors leading to low back pain, and the establishment of an enhanced objective design process for functional load-bearing clothing and equipment.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.369
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorkSame topicOccupational Health and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207