MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518828470 · doi:10.1177/1541931213601230

Fatigue Monitoring and Management across Different Industries

2016· article· en· W2518828470 on OpenAlexaff
Ranjana K. Mehta, S. Camille Peres, Linsey M. Steege, Jim R. Potvin, Mike Franz Wahl, Laura Stanley, Thomas E. Nesthus

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadAviationWork (physics)Shift workIdentification (biology)Mental fatigueRisk analysis (engineering)Applied psychologyOperations managementBusinessPsychologyEngineeringComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fatigue, often defined as a physiological state of reduced mental or physical performance capability resulting from sleep loss, circadian phase, or workload (physical or cognitive), has been implicated as a critical risk factor resulting in severe injuries and accidents. A great deal of research has been done into the identification, measurement, and management of fatigue, however it is still poorly understood. This may be due to the characteristics and variability of work conditions across different industries; for example, fatigue in manufacturing is largely related to physical demands, and in aviation fatigue is related to sleep and shift-work. This panel will comprise of academics and practitioners across manufacturing, healthcare, transportation, aviation, and oil and gas industries. Topics covered within each industry will include fatigue causes and consequences, existing fatigue monitoring/management practices, barriers to fatigue monitoring and management, and recommendations/discussions around improving the current state.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207