Perceived Risk of Low-Back Injury Among Four Occupations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the perception of risk of low-back injury of individuals from four groups: office/administrative employees, dental workers (dentists/dental hygienists), firefighters, and undergraduate students. BACKGROUND: The concept of worker's perception of injury risk has been used to set safe material-handling limits and to determine compliance with health and safety regulations but has not been used to identify perceptual differences among occupations or potential deficiencies in risk awareness. METHOD: Participants (N = 232) were presented with eight images of different low-back postures/tasks and were required to rate their perceived magnitude of low-back risk on a scale from 0 (no risk) to 10 (extreme risk). RESULTS: Office/administrative and dental workers rated postures higher than firefighters and students. Individuals from all groups perceived kyphotic postures as having a higher low-back risk than lordotic postures. Further, office and dental workers, compared to firefighters and students, perceived sitting postures to have a relatively higher level of risk, likely due to these postures being typically adopted by these individuals at work. No relationship between previous low-back pain and risk rating was observed in this study. CONCLUSION: Low-back injury risk perception varies between occupations/groups and may be a result of different exposures. APPLICATION: The results of this study can potentially be used to implement occupation-specific training programs to ensure that the scientific research regarding low-back injuries is being properly conveyed to employees across all sectors.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".