MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974324494

A Comparative Evaluation of Hand-Arm Vibration Impacts

2019· article· en· W2974324494 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransport Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVibrationWhole body vibrationStructural engineeringAcousticsEngineeringComputer sciencePhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hand-arm vibration is a transmission of vibration from the use vibratory machinery or tools to a worker’s hands and arms. This paper looks at the attenuation characteristics of the frequency weighing curve Wh and presents some comparative results of vibration impacts from the use of several hand tools. Comparisons were made between the measurement methods prescribed by ISO standards and the data analysis of the raw vibration data. The results show that the measured impact as per the applicable ISO standards is significantly lower than the calculated vibration impact from the raw vibration data. This paper investigates other potential parameters that may be used to characterize the cumulative impacts from the hand-arm vibration. These additional analytical parameters may be used in evaluating the cumulative hand-arm vibration impacts in a more comprehensive way. Keywords: Hand-arm vibration, filter, ISO 5349, ISO 2631.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.213 · 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