Ergonomic assessment of veterinarians during performance of bovine reproductive examinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify and quantify potential ergonomic hazards associated with routine reproductive examinations of cattle. SAMPLE: 7 bovine veterinarians. PROCEDURES: Each veterinarian was observed and videotaped during 2 bovine reproductive examination appointments. During each appointment, a force-matching protocol was used to estimate the entry force used by the veterinarian to insert an arm into a cow's rectum. Veterinarian posture and repetitive movements and the work environment were assessed and quantified during review of the video recordings. Descriptive data were generated. RESULTS: Of the 14 appointments observed, 9 and 5 involved examination of beef and dairy cows, respectively. For all veterinarians, an arm inclination ≥ 60° was observed during most reproductive examinations. The number of examinations performed per hour ranged from 19.1 to 116.8. The estimated entry force ranged from 121 to 349 N. During all 9 appointments involving beef cows, the veterinarian participated in other tasks (eg, operating overhead levers, opening gates, or assisting with cattle handling) that represented ergonomic hazards. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results confirmed that reproductive examination of cattle exposes veterinarians to various ergonomic hazards involving awkward positions and repetitive and forceful exertions that can contribute to musculoskeletal discomfort and injury, particularly of the upper extremities (neck, shoulders, upper back, arms, elbows, wrists, and hands). Veterinarians frequently participated in other tasks during reproductive examination appointments that exposed them to additional ergonomic hazards. Risk mitigation strategies should prioritize minimizing exposure of veterinarians to tasks not directly associated with the reproductive examination procedure to decrease their overall ergonomic hazard burden.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".