Towards a metatheory explaining hearing protection device use among workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Offering hearing protection devices (HPDs) to workers exposed to hazardous noise is a common noise control strategy for preventing noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). However, HPDs are not always worn, or are used incorrectly and inconsistently by workers, which explains their limited efficiency. Numerous models based on social cognition theories aim to improve hearing protection training programs and to increase HPD use. They identify significant factors associated with worker’s behaviors regarding HPD use (e.g., perceived barriers and benefits to HPD use, perceived self-efficacy). However, these models do not detail (dis)comfort aspects originating from complex interactions between physical characteristics of the triad “user/HPD/work environment” while these aspects are known to largely influence HPD (mis)use. The objective of this communication is to propose a metatheory explaining HPD (mis)use and based on the integration of an HPD comfort model into an existing social cognition model already developed for HPDs. This holistic description of the HPD use, involving both physical and psychosocial characteristics of the triad, could be used as a tool for the stakeholders (e.g., researchers, manufacturers, preventers) involved in the protection of workers from NIHL.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".