Evaluation of Management Practices as a Result of an Implementation of a Participatory Ergonomics Program in a Poultry Processing Plant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project was initiated when a poultry processing plant contacted a university-based research alliance requesting a participatory ergonomics (PE) program be implemented in their plant to address the incidence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSDs). This program implementation provided a research opportunity to observe changes in management practices as a result of the implementation. Management practices observed were related to communication, networking, and leadership factors surrounding the PE program. Results suggest that upper management made a financial commitment to the PE program but did not engage at all levels and did not promote accountability from project stakeholders. As a result, the program did not engage sufficient participation and support at all stakeholder levels. Project activities were primarily driven by an Ergo-Team (ET) middle management member who coordinated most ET activities and made many unilateral ET-related decisions. Due to poor decision-making and lack of quality interactions and participation between levels of management, much of the knowledge and skills obtained through training and program participation remained within middle management. Opportunities for quality social exchanges and knowledge transfer were not availed upon. As a result, the PE program exists at a superficial level within the organization and the program did not create changes in management practices. The capacity within the organization to sustain a PE program over time may be at risk.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".