MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292179364 · doi:10.14288/1.0076405

Ergonomics and physical demand analysis in a construction manufacturing facility

2015· article· en· W2292179364 on OpenAlex

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

VenueOpen Collections · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman factors and ergonomicsManufacturing engineeringEngineeringOperations managementComputer sciencePoison controlMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Poor workstation design in a manufacturing facility negatively impacts the health and safety of workers, which hampers productivity. A systematic tool, Physical Demand Analysis (PDA), is utilized in a case-study project to quantify and evaluate physical labour and body posture for various production line tasks in a window and door manufacturing company. This paper presents the implementation PDA focusing on the design of the PDA form template, plant observation, and ergonomic risk identification. The data collection methodology and the implementation of time studies for plant observation are described. Four main ergonomic risks are identified: static whole body posture, manual material handling, sensory problem, and awkward body postures. Detailed observation findings, risk assessment method, analysis results and suggested corresponding corrective measures with regard to these four risks are described in this paper.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.344 · 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