MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297384644 · doi:10.3233/wor-211121

Past, present, and future of E/HF for sustainability: A perspective from the HFSD Technical Committee

2022· article· en· W4297384644 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWork · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicErgonomics and Human Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilitySocial sustainabilityWork (physics)Engineering ethicsInterconnectivityAction (physics)Sustainability scienceRoad mapSustainable developmentTheme (computing)Set (abstract data type)Perspective (graphical)Political scienceSociologyManagement scienceEngineeringComputer scienceSocial scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sustainability is a highly important theme worldwide and currently is being tackled by almost all disciplines. Indeed, the future of humanity is dependent on the actions taken now and in the immediate future. The Ergonomics and Human Factors (E/HF) community has not been indifferent to this issue, and one of the concrete actions adopted by the International Ergonomics Association (IEA) was the establishment of the "Human Factors for Sustainable Development" (HFSD) Technical Committee. OBJECTIVE: To identify future paths of action, this paper recognizes the trajectory of the HFSD Technical Committee, summarizes the contributions presented at IEA2021, the International Congress on Ergonomics held virtually in Vancouver in 2021, and reflects on key aspects that should be boosted by the Technical Committee. METHODS: This is a qualitative interpretative study that reflects on the contributions of members of the HFSD community working on E/HF for sustainability. RESULTS: Central topics and opportunities in E/HF and sustainability include complexity of systems, behaviors, and work; energy use and consumption; co-design, interconnectivity, territories, and the relationships with stakeholders. CONCLUSION: Although the contributions have been growing, there is still a lot of work needed, both theoretically and practically. Themes to be discussed include the concepts of sustainability and work. Considering the centrality of human beings (i.e., decision making for achieving the different dimensions of sustainability), the authors identify a set of values as core principles for leading the discussion.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.209 · 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