MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901565113 · doi:10.3390/agronomy8110266

Ergonomic Evaluation of Current Advancements in Blueberry Harvesting

2018· article· en· W2901565113 on OpenAlexaff
Eun‐Sik Kim, Andris Freivalds, Fumiomi Takeda, Changying Li

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsWork (physics)Cumulative trauma disorderHuman factors and ergonomicsEngineeringWork-related musculoskeletal disordersSittingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationOccupational safety and healthWork timeMusculoskeletal disorderAgricultural engineeringPhysical therapyPoison controlMedicineEnvironmental healthMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) accounted for 32% of days-away-from-work cases in private industry in 2016. Several factors have been associated with MSDs, such as repetitive motion, excessive force, awkward and/or sustained postures, and prolonged sitting and standing, all of which are required in farm workers’ labor. While numerous epidemiological studies on the prevention of MSDs in agriculture have been conducted, an ergonomics evaluation of blueberry harvesting has not yet been systematically performed. The purpose of this study was to investigate the risk factors of MSDs for several types of blueberry harvesting (hand harvesting, semi-mechanical harvesting with hand-held shakers, and over-the-row machines) in terms of workers’ postural loads and self-reported discomfort using ergonomics intervention techniques. Five field studies in the western region of the United States between 2017 and 2018 were conducted using the Borg CR10 scale, electromyography (EMG), Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA), the Cumulative Trauma Disorders (CTD) index, and the NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) lifting equation. In evaluating the workloads of picking and moving blueberries by hand, semi-mechanical harvesting with hand-held shakers, and completely mechanized harvesting, only EMG and the NIOSH lifting equation were used, as labor for this system is limited to loading empty lugs and unloading full lugs. Based on the results, we conclude that working on the fully mechanized harvester would be the best approach to minimizing worker loading and fatigue. This is because the total component ratio of postures in hand harvesting with a RULA score equal to or greater than 5 was 69%, indicating that more than half of the postures were high risk for shoulder pain. For the semi-mechanical harvesting, the biggest problem with the shakers is the vibration, which can cause fatigue and various risks to workers, especially in the upper limbs. However, it would be challenging for small- and medium-sized blueberry farms to purchase automated harvesters due to their high cost. Thus, collaborative efforts among health and safety professionals, engineers, social scientists, and ergonomists are needed to provide effective ergonomic interventions.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations29
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomySame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207