MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300981783 · doi:10.3233/wor-211216

The barriers and opportunities to support the early career academics and professionals in human factors/ergonomics - revisiting reflections from IEA2015, IEA2018 & IEA2021

2022· article· en· W4300981783 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWork · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicOccupational and Professional Licensing Regulation
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipContext (archaeology)Participatory action researchCitizen journalismPublic relationsParticipatory ergonomicsHuman factors and ergonomicsEngineering ethicsMedical educationKnowledge managementPolitical scienceEngineeringSociologyMedicinePoison controlComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Early-Career Community (ECC) comprises researchers, practitioners, and professionals in their "early-career" stages in the Human Factors/Ergonomics (HFE) profession. Early-career HFE professionals are essential to both current industry decision making and future growth of our profession. OBJECTIVE: This paper provides detailed insights into the barriers and suggestions to support engagement with ECC within the International Ergonomics Association (IEA) and its Federated Societies. METHODS: This report integrates key findings from the formal and informal discussions that occurred with diverse groups of stakeholders (n > 100) at IEA2015, IEA2018 and IEA2021 guided by the participatory inquiry paradigm, cooperative action-inquiry and participatory ergonomics approaches. RESULTS: Barriers to support ECC include: a lack of employment opportunities, poor general awareness and integration of HFE in existing university-courses, financial constraints, inclusivity challenges and a lack of Influence in decision-making. While some of the more systemic challenges are context-specific and cannot be overcome, ECCs suggested that: the IEA and its Federated Societies include ECC members as part of their boards; a Standing Committee for the ECCs be established as part of the IEA; make use of social-media more effectively to engage the ECC. More mentorship, networking, knowledge sharing, training and education, combined with financial-support will ensure that the ECC can participate. CONCLUSION: ECC members experience complex and dynamic challenges that affect their development and involvement in the broader HFE profession. It is therefore critical that appropriate, global, national and local strategies are developed to continue to support and develop the ECC to ensure the continued growth of and demand for HFE.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.149 · 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