Emerging Trends of Ergonomic Risk Assessment in Construction Safety Management: A Scientometric Visualization Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ergonomic risk assessment is critical for identifying working posture hazardous to the health of construction workers. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) are predominant non-fatal injuries in the construction industry owing to manual handling activities and poor working conditions. However, there is a lack of scientific synopsis aiming to better understand the emerging research focus in this field. To fill the research gap, this study performed a scientometric evaluation of the bibliometric data on ergonomic risk assessment from the Web of Science database using VOSviewer software. The purpose of this study is to analyze the co-occurrence network of keywords, co-authorship network, most active countries, and the sources of publication. The results indicate that research related to risk assessment in construction has fluctuating growth, peaking in 2020 with significant advancements in the USA, China, and Canada. WMSDs, risk factors, construction workers, and ergonomics are hot research topics in this field. Furthermore, the research gaps of previous studies and suggestions for future research have been provided to bridge the knowledge gap. We believe that this scientometric review provides useful reference points for early-stage researchers as well as beneficial in-depth information to experienced practitioners and scholars in the construction industry.
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 | 0.019 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".