The Relevance of Psychophysical Methods Research for the Practitioner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of a psychophysical methodology in conducting manual materials handling and upper extremity studies is well recognized, and the findings (e.g., the Snook and Ciriello studies and the Liberty Mutual tables) have extensive application in the assessment and design of a variety of tasks in industry. In particular, the psychophysical methodology is directed to the assessment of what workers can actually perform and as such has identified acceptable workloads for various working populations. In many cases the identification of these acceptable workloads has historically been very difficult to achieve with methods in other scientific disciplines (e.g., Biomechanics, Physiology, Epidemiology). The purpose of this discussion panel will be to explore the questions on the usefulness and continuing relevance of the psychophysical methodologies to address the needs of the practitioner community. Each panelist will explore the applications of psychophysics in several areas of research and practice. The continuing relevance and directions of psychophysical research will be explored in discussion with the panelists and audience.
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 | 0.206 | 0.277 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".