Reproducibility and validity of workers’ self-reports of physical work demands
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
The objective of this paper is to provide a systematic review of the reproducibility and validity of self-report questions concerning physical work demands. After a bibliographic search of Medline and Ergonomic Abstracts for 1980-2003, 15 articles meeting the eligibility criteria were reviewed for methodological quality; 82 formulations of questions on physical work demands were evaluated for reproducibility and 83 for validity. Questions evaluated for both reproducibility and validity that performed well in both sets of studies included those on duration or presence of sitting and standing posture, the presence of walking, kneeling or squatting postures, duration or frequency of hands above shoulders, manual handling of more than or less than 10 kg, general level of physical effort, presence and duration of whole-body vibration, and duration of the use of visual display terminals. Suggestions for improving the design of reproducibility and validity studies and directions for future research in physical workload measurement are proposed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it