Evaluation of Protective Gloves and Working Techniques for Reducing Hand‐arm Vibration Exposure in the Workplace
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluation of Protective Gloves and Working Techniques for Reducing Hand‐arm Vibration Exposure in the Workplace: Matija MILOSEVIC, et al . Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Ryerson University, Canada— Objectives Operation of handheld power tools results in exposure to hand‐arm vibrations, which over time lead to numerous health complications. The objective of this study was to evaluate protective equipment and working techniques for the reduction of vibration exposure. Methods Vibration transmissions were recorded during different work techniques: with one‐ and two‐handed grip, while wearing protective gloves (standard, air and anti‐vibration gloves) and while holding a foam‐covered tool handle. The effect was examined by analyzing the reduction of transmitted vibrations at the wrist. The vibration transmission was recorded with a portable device using a triaxial accelerometer. Results The results suggest large and significant reductions of vibration with appropriate safety equipment. Reductions of 85.6% were achieved when anti‐vibration gloves were used. Conclusions Our results indicated that transmitted vibrations were affected by several factors and could be measured and significantly reduced.
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.
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 | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it