Optimizing Human Performance to Enhance Safety: A Case Study in an Automotive Plant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human factors play a relevant role in the dynamic work environments of the manufacturing sector in terms of production efficiency, safety, and sustainable performance. This is particularly relevant in assembly lines where humans are widely employed alongside automated and robotic agents. In this situation, operators’ ability to adapt to different levels of task complexity and variability in each workstation has a strong impact on the safety, reliability, and efficiency of the overall production process. This paper presents an application of a theoretical and empirical method used to assess the matching of different workers to various workstations based on a quantified comparison between the workload associated with the tasks and the human capability of the workers that can rotate among them. The approach allowed for the development of an algorithm designed to operationalise indicators for workload and task complexity requirements, considering the skills and capabilities of individual operators. This led to the creation of human performance (HP) indices. The HP indices were utilized to ensure a good match between requirements and capabilities, aiming to minimise the probability of human error and injuries. The developed and customised model demonstrated encouraging results in the specific case studies where it was applied but also offers a generalizable approach that can extend to other contexts and situations where job rotations can benefit from effectively matching operators to suitable task requirements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".