Comparison of Anthropometry of U.S. Electric Utility Field-Workers With North American General Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether conventional anthropometric databases of the U.S. general population are applicable to the population of U.S. electric utility field-workers. BACKGROUND: On the basis of anecdotal observations, field-workers for electric power utilities were thought to be generally taller and larger than the general population. However, there were no anthropometric data available on this population, and it was not known whether the conventional anthropometric databases could be used to design for this population. METHOD: For this study, 3 standing and II sitting anthropometric measurements were taken from 187 male field-workers from three electric power utilities located in the upper Midwest of the United States and Southern California. The mean and percentile anthropometric data from field-workers were compared with seven well-known conventional anthropometric databases for North American males (United States, Canada, and Mexico). RESULTS: In general, the male field-workers were taller and heavier than the people in the reference databases for U.S. males. The field-workers were up to 2.3 cm taller and 10 kg to 18 kg heavier than the averages of the reference databases. CONCLUSION: This study was justified, as it showed that the conventional anthropometric databases of the general population underestimated the size of electric utility field-workers, particularly with respect to weight. APPLICATION: When designing vehicles and tools for electric utility field-workers, designers and ergonomists should consider the population being designed for and the data from this study to maximize safety, minimize risk of injuries, and optimize performance.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".