MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396759782 · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106542

Beyond the Clock: Revisiting Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) for unusual work schedules in the South African Mining Industry

2024· article· en· W4396759782 on OpenAlex
Ilzé Engelbrecht, Suranie Horn, Cas J. Badenhorst, Johan du Plessis

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

VenueSafety Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupational safety and healthHuman factors and ergonomicsWork (physics)Poison controlOccupational exposureMining industryInjury preventionSuicide preventionOccupational medicineEnvironmental healthEngineeringForensic engineeringBusinessMedicineAeronauticsTransport engineeringMining engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Workers are exposed to various stressors in their workplace and in many industries, exposure is prolonged due to unusual work schedules. Unfortunately, current Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) are derived from calculations based on a conventional work schedule of five consecutive, eight-hour days (40 h per week) and do not compensate for prolonged exposure and shortened recovery time. Therefore, standard OELs must be adjusted to ensure worker protection. The aim of this paper was to review different mathematical models available in the literature to adjust OELs for unusual work schedules. Based on the advantages, disadvantages and practical feasibility of the different models, the Brief and Scala, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Québec models were selected to calculate reduction factors (RFs, i.e., adjustment factors) for three unusual work schedules encountered in the South African Mining Industry (SAMI). Subsequently, the calculated RFs were used to establish adjusted OELs (OELA) for 15 chemical substances of interest. The Brief and Scala model yielded the most conservative RFs for all work schedule examples. However, this model may overestimate the degree to which the OELs should be lowered. The OSHA and Québec models incorporate pharmacokinetic parameters (i.e., primary health effects) and generated more realistic RFs compared to the Brief and Scala model. Although pharmacokinetic-based models are more accurate from a toxicological viewpoint, the anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and physiochemical parameters required to apply these models are not available for many chemical substances and therefore the use of such pharmacokinetic-based models is not practically feasible in South Africa. Based on the findings of this study, the authors recommend using the OSHA or Québec models for OEL adjustments in the SAMI. OELs adjusted in this manner will provide an equivalent degree of worker protection during unusual work schedules compared to conventional work shifts.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.343 · 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