Smart Wearables for the Detection of Occupational Physical Fatigue: A Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today's world is changing dramatically due to the influence of various factors. Whether due to the rapid development of technological tools, advances in telecommunication methods, global economic and social events, or other reasons, almost everything is changing. As a result, the concepts of a "job" or work have changed as well, with new work shifts being introduced and the office no longer being the only place where work is done. In addition, our non-stop active society has increased the stress and pressure at work, causing fatigue to spread worldwide and becoming a global problem. Moreover, it is medically proven that persistent fatigue is a cause of serious diseases and health problems. Therefore, monitoring and detecting fatigue in the workplace is essential to improve worker safety in the long term. In this paper, we provide an overview of the use of smart wearable devices to monitor and detect occupational physical fatigue. In addition, we present and discuss the challenges that hinder this field and highlight what can be done to advance the use of smart wearables in workplace fatigue detection.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".