Evaluation of factors affecting the performance of vacuums used to control respirable crystalline silica in the British Columbia construction industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workers in the construction industry are known to be at risk of high exposures to respirable crystalline silica (RCS). Local exhaust ventilation (LEV) has been proposed by regulators as a primary method to control RCS exposure to construction workers. However, real-world data on the effectiveness of LEV in controlling RCS exposure is limited with available studies providing varying results. This study looks at the use and performance of vacuums, a common type of LEV available, used in conjunction with different hand tools on real-world constructions sites. A combination of study methods including field sampling, worker survey and simulated tests were used. During the field sampling, information regarding the vacuums, work environment conditions and dust exposure measurements were collected. These data were later used in regressions models to determine the determinants that strongly influenced the performance of the vacuums. The worker surveys provided information on the knowledge and attitude of workers. The simulated tests were used to corroborate information from the field sampling or to test specific scenarios where there is potential secondary dust exposure due to the use of vacuums. The study results show that the age and maintenance of the vacuums had the strongest effect on the airflow of the vacuum. However, while maintaining a sufficient airflow is important to ensure dust capture, the correlation of airflow with respirable dust exposure was weak. Both age and maintenance of the vacuums as well as environmental factors play a large part in determining the respirable dust exposure to the worker. It is recommended that all vacuum users are trained in both basic principles of ventilation as well as the standard operating procedure of the specific vacuum model being used. This is as each vacuum operates differently and may require different maintenance processes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".