Examining the Usefulness of ISO 10819 Anti-Vibration Glove Certification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anti-vibration gloves are commonly worn to reduce hand-arm vibration exposure from work with hand-held vibrating tools when higher priority and more effective controls are unavailable. For gloves to be marketed as 'anti-vibration' they must meet the vibration transmissibility criteria described in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard 10819 (2013). Several issues exist with respect to the methodology used for glove testing as well as the requirements for glove design and composition in ISO 10819 (2013). The true usefulness of anti-vibration gloves at preventing hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) is controversial, given that their performance is dependent on tool vibration characteristics and the anthropometrics of workers in real working conditions. The major risk associated with the use of anti-vibration gloves is that it will give employees and employers a false sense of protection against the negative effects of hand-transmitted vibration. This commentary examines the limitations of the current international standards for anti-vibration glove testing and certification, thereby calling into question the degree of protection that anti-vibration gloves provide against HAVS, and cautioning users to consider both their benefits and potential drawbacks on a case-by-case basis.
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 | 0.028 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".