The role of workers' perceptions towards the uncertain result of ergonomic program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Manual activities of workers in palm oil factories cause pain complaints that can be resolved with an ergonomic program. However, the uncertainty of the success of the ergonomic program requires active involvement from workers. This study aims to discuss the role of workers’ perceptions towards the success of the ergonomic program intervention in palm oil mills. By referring to the theory of reasoned action and technology acceptance model, acceptance of workers to ergonomics programs are influenced by perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived trust. All these research variables were analyzed simultaneously using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) software, in which data were obtained from questionnaires given to 280 people working in 20 palm oil mills in North Sumatra Province. The sampling method used is simple random sampling and model estimation is performed using PLS regression algorithm and resampling bootstrapping method. The result shows that perceived usefulness has the biggest effect on the success of the ergonomic program, followed by perceived trust and perceived ease of use, which has a smaller effect. This study focuses on workers’ perception that needs to be considered for facing uncertain results in implementing an ergonomic program.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".