MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560151406 · doi:10.25011/cim.v39i6.27527

Risk factors associated with work-related musculoskeletal disorders in dentistry

2016· article· en· W2560151406 on OpenAlex
Sinem Bozkurt, Nesrin Demirsoy, Zafer Günendi

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational health in dentistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAbsenteeismPhysical therapyLow back painAlternative medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate musculoskeletal system-related complaints; identify regions at risk in dentists by observing and inquiring the dentists at work; and find out the associations with age, sex, working years, academic position and departments, positions during work and daily working hours. METHODS: Modified Nordic Questionnaire (m-nMQ) was used to evaluate pain, hospital admissions and absenteeism. Quick Exposure Check (QEC) form was utilized to assess risk exposure levels related with low-back, neck, hand-wrist and shoulder-arm. RESULTS: 163 dentists were included the most painful regions were found to be back (66.9%), neck (65%) and low back (64.4%). Musculoskeletal symptoms were more prevalent in women and research assistants. QEC scores were found to be lower in those who performed regular exercises. CONCLUSION: Dentists should be educated about ergonomics at the beginning of their professional life.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science 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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.269 · 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