52 Effectiveness of participatory ergonomic interventions and a musculoskeletal disorder prevention program on the reduction of musculoskeletal risk-factors in core-shack operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Workplace musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) give rise to approximately 44% of compensation claims each year within the Canadian mining sector. Despite the immensity of reported WMSDs little research has been conducted within said population. The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of physical ergonomic interventions and a participatory MSD prevention program on the reduction of MSD risk-factors within core-shack operators. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the awkward postures, excessive force requirements, and repetitive material handling found within core-shack operations may be placing workers at a greater risk for MSD development; however, no previous research has been conducted. Methods Amalgamation of observational based MSD screening tools and direct joint-angle measurements via a mobile movement analysis and motion capture system (NOTCH) will be used. Siemens Classic Jack human modelling software will be utilised to provide ergonomic assessments within a simulated environment. Resultant data will be used to develop targeted physical ergonomic interventions to mitigate MSD risk-factors within at-risk tasks. The Occupational Health and Safety Council of Ontario (OHSCO) MSD Prevention Toolbox 3C and New South Wales Mine Safety and Advisory Committee MSD Prevention Guide will be used as a reference for the development of a participatory MSD Prevention Program. Result It is anticipated that the implementation of targeted workplace ergonomic interventions in conjunction with a participatory MSD prevention program will provide a comprehensive approach to MSD risk factor identification and prevention strategies. Moreover, it is expected that the intervention components will increase communication and decision latitude within core-shack operations. Discussion The prevalence of musculoskeletal injuries with the Canadian mining industry is of particular concern. The dissemination of this study will be shared with participating mines so improvements can be made to aide in worker health and safety and prevention of musculoskeletal injuries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".