MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172879924 · doi:10.1016/s1572-347x(00)80008-7

Human muscle strength definitions, measurement, and usage: Part I – Guidelines for the practitioner1 1The recommendations provided in this guide are based on numerous published and unpublished scientific studies and are intended to enhance worker safety and productivity. These recommendations are neither intended to replace existing standards, if any, nor should be treated as standards. Furthermore, this document should not be construed to represent institutional policy.The following individuals participated in the discussion of the earlier version of this guide. Their suggestions (written or verbal) were incorporated by the authors in this version: A. Aaras, Norway; J.E. Fernandez, U.S.A.; A. Freivalds, U.S.A.; T. Gallewey, Ireland; M. Jager, Germany; S. Konz, U.S.A.; H. Krueger, Switzerland; K. Landau, Germany; A. Luttmann, Germany; J.D. Ramsey, U.S.A.; M-J. Wang, Taiwan.

2000· book-chapter· en· W2172879924 on OpenAlex
Anil Mital, Shrawan Kumar

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueElsevier ergonomics book series · 2000
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineering ethicsComputer scienceManagement sciencePsychologyData scienceEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.293 · 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