MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Safe Work Times For Men Performing Consecutive Workdays In The Heat: A Preliminary Assessment

2024· article· en· W4402662856 on OpenAlexaffabout
Roberto C. Harris‐Mostert, Katie E. Wagar, Fergus K. O’Connor, Kristina‐Marie T. Janetos, Brodie J. Richards, Emily J. Tetzlaff, James J. McCormick, Robert D. Meade, Glen P. Kenny

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)PsychologyOperations managementEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To mitigate the adverse health effects of occupational heat stress, regulatory agencies provide guidance on the use of heat-alleviation controls (work/rest cycles) to limit core temperature from reaching potentially unsafe levels, typically defined as sustained elevations above 38 °C. However, no recommendations are given for the initial work duration before controls should be employed (termed initial stay time). Although a recent study provided initial stay times for moderate-intensity work in varying ambient conditions, this assessment was limited to a single simulated work shift. A day of work in the heat can exacerbate increases in core temperature during subsequent work shifts, particularly in older workers, placing them at a greater risk of heat-related injuries. However, no study has evaluated the effect of work in the heat on safe initial stay times during subsequent work bouts. PURPOSE: To determine if refinements in initial stay times for young and older males performing moderate work in very warm conditions are required for i) a second work bout on the same day that is preceded by an extended rest period (e.g., a lunch break), and ii) a work bout performed on the next day. METHODS: Six young (median (IQR) age: 23 (21 - 24) yrs) and 8 older (66 (64 - 67) yrs) males performed a 4-h moderate-intensity treadmill walk (200 W/m2 metabolic heat production) in 26 °C wet-bulb globe temperature. Work continued until core (rectal) temperature reached 38 °C. Thereafter, the recommended work-to-rest allocation of 3:1 was employed for the remainder of the work period, starting with 15 min rest. The protocol was completed again in the afternoon after a 1-hour lunch break in a temperate environment (22 °C) and on the following morning. RESULTS: Initial stay time was 63% [95% CI: 47, 74] lower in the afternoon (26 (17 - 40) min) compared to the morning of day 1 (74 (53 - 127) min; P < 0.01). By contrast, morning stay times were not different between day 1 and 2 (63 (38 - 119) min; P = 0.89). Stay times were similar between young and older men (P = 0.59). CONCLUSION: Initial stay time decreased in the afternoon following a morning work period. However, there was no difference in morning stay time over consecutive days. Our findings suggest that refinements in safe initial stay times are required for afternoon work but not for the morning of the next workday. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (Ontario) and Mitacs

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.371 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207