MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

VR–MOCAP-Enabled Ergonomic Risk Assessment of Workstation Prototypes in Offsite Construction

2022· article· en· W4281291835 on OpenAlexaff
Regina Dias Barkokebas, Mohamed Al‐Hussein, Xinming Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Construction Engineering and Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkstationMotion captureVirtual realityComputer scienceHuman factors and ergonomicsHuman–computer interactionSimulationPopulationPercentileMotion (physics)EngineeringPoison controlArtificial intelligenceMedicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Workers in offsite construction facilities are often exposed to repetitive motion and awkward body postures that are associated with the risk of developing work-related musculoskeletal disorders despite the use of automated equipment on production lines. To reduce the exposure to these risks, an investigation of the physical demands that workstations impose on workers’ bodies is needed. Since traditional methods used to collect human body motions have limitations, such as workplace interruptions and biased results due to subjective observation, this paper proposes a virtual reality (VR)–motion capture (MOCAP)-based ergonomic assessment method to evaluate ergonomic risks in a laboratory setting during the design phase of workstation development. It is expected that the number of iterations of physical workstation prototypes would be reduced if ergonomic risk ratings are identified proactively in the initial phases of workstation design, which would thereby reduce the cost and time required to develop and implement an improved workstation design. The present study includes a feasibility analysis of the proposed method in which participants representative of specific percentiles of the population based on their physical stature were invited to voluntarily participate in a research experiment. The results obtained demonstrate that the proposed method can successfully simulate the elemental motions, referred to as therbligs, of reaching and positioning (Pearson’s correlation coefficient is found to equal 0.80 and 0.94, respectively), while the simulation of the assembling therblig requires further investigation. The contribution of this study is a virtual reality–motion captured-enabled ergonomic risk assessment method applied to workstation design for offsite construction production lines. In addition, the deployment of the proposed method allows a holistic ergonomic assessment that considers objective and subjective parameters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Construction Engineering and ManagementSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207