MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Worker Fatigue in Electrical-Transmission and Distribution-Line Construction

2018· article· en· W2899586122 on OpenAlexaff
Ulises Techera, Matthew R. Hallowell, Ray Littlejohn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Construction Engineering and Management · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)PaceCausationForensic engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within the construction industry, electrical transmission and distribution workers (TD workers) account for one of the highest fatality rates. Because of the hazardous nature of the work, there is little margin for human error. Previous research shows that fatigue exacerbates human error, thus representing a critical safety factor for TD work. Although researchers have studied the causes and consequences of fatigue in laboratory settings and in other industries, there is no research specific to TD worker fatigue. To address this knowledge gap and explore the principal fatigue causes and consequences as recognized by the workers; 143 TD power company workers were interviewed using a standardized questionnaire. Additionally, fatigue identification and mitigation techniques relevant to TD work and the impact of fatigue in accident causation were discovered. The results revealed that TD workers perceive extreme temperatures and long shifts to be the principal causes of their fatigue, resulting in reduced work pace and the loss of attention as the primary consequences. The results suggest that fatigue laboratory research may not directly apply to field conditions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations32
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Construction Engineering and ManagementSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207