Requirements to respiratory protection for workers (World practices reviewed)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A great number of workplaces in Russia do not conform to sanitary-hygienic requirements and it results in wide use of personal respiratory protective equipment (PRPE). Choice on such equipment and its application are not regulated by the existing legislation in the RF in great detail as it is the case in developed countries. As a result, employers apply PRPE that is not efficient enough, or such equipment is not used properly, and it leads to diseases occurrence. Our research goal was to reveal requirements to PRPE application which, when met, would reduce risks for workers’ life and health as greatly as it is only possible. Our research object was personal respiratory protective equipment (PRPE). We compared requirements to selecting and applying PRPE in the USA, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and West Germany and also took into account requirement and experts’ recommendations existing in several other countries. When comparing, we tried to focus on key elements that determined whether PRPE applied in due time was able to prevent exposure to air contamination. Such key elements included choice on PRPE suitable for work under extremely hazardous conditions; permissible application of PRPE with different structure (expected protective efficiency); individual selection and testing whether a mask is fit for a face; timely replacement of respirator filters; requirements to skills of workers and their supervisors. Our research revealed that results of PRPE application and requirements fixed for employers were most comprehensively estimated and well-grounded in the USA. The most favorable situation with quality and availability of materials on how to select and apply PRPE for workers, specialists, and supervisors is also in the USA. Results obtained via the performed comparison allow recommending US Standard 29 CFR 1910.134 as a basis for developing similar requirements in Russia.
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 | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
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".