MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953527213 · doi:10.22260/isarc2019/0129

Using Serious Games in Virtual Reality for Automated Close Call and Contact Collision Analysis in Construction Safety

2019· article· en· W2953527213 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Olga Golovina, Caner Kazancı, Jochen Teizer, Markus König

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... ISARC · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituation awarenessComputer scienceVirtual realityHazardWork (physics)DownloadAugmented realityCollisionSituational ethicsHuman–computer interactionComputer securityEngineeringWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using Serious Games in Virtual Reality for Automated Close Call and Contact Collision Analysis in Construction Safety Olga Golovina, Caner Kazanci, Jochen Teizer and Markus König Pages 967-974 (2019 Proceedings of the 36th ISARC, Banff, Canada, ISBN 978-952-69524-0-6, ISSN 2413-5844) Abstract: Injuries and fatalities resulting from workplace accidents remain a global concern within the construction industry. While education and training of personnel offer well known approaches for establishing a safe work environment, Serious Games in Virtual Reality (VR) is being increasingly investigated as a complementary approach for learning. They yet have to take full advantage of the inherent data that can be collected about players. This research presents a novel approach for the automated assessment of players’ data. The proposed method gathers and processes the data within a serious game for instant personalized feedback. The application focuses on close calls and contact collisions between construction workers and hazards like equipment, harmful substances, or restricted work zones. The results demonstrate the benefits and limitations of safety information previously unavailable, or very hard or impossible to collect. An outlook presents work ahead for practical implementation in existing risk management processes. Keywords: accident investigation; close call; construction safety; equipment contact collisions; hazard; human-hazard interaction; risk prevention; serious game; situational awareness; virtual reality; workforce education; training DOI: https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2019/0129 Download fulltext Download BibTex Download Endnote (RIS) TeX Import to Mendeley

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations35
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ... ISARCSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207