MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

AVALIAÇÃO DE ACIDENTE MORTAL COM TRATOR AGRÍCOLA ATRAVÉS DA ÁRVORE DAS CAUSAS E ELABORAÇÃO DE PROCEDIMENTOS DE BOAS PRÁTICAS

2024· article· pt· W4404919254 on OpenAlexaff
José Gomes, Maria Aldiza Coelho Pedrosa, Alzira Parreiras

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsNortel (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

O objetivo deste trabalho foi o de realizar uma análise de um acidente mortal com trator agrícola, identificado em relatório da Commission des Normes, de l'Équité, de la Santé et de la Sécurité du Travail (CNESST), por meio da Árvore das Causas e posterior elaboração de procedimento de boas práticas para o setor. O acidente de trabalho ocorreu na utilização do conjunto trator agrícola e carregador frontal, ao movimentar e transportar um grande fardo redondo de feno plastificado, em marcha-atrás, em superfície plana e na extremidade lateral da parcela, com declive. A aplicação do método apurou que as causas da morte do operador foram a não colocação do cinto de segurança e a porta da cabina do lado esquerdo estar apenas encostada, sem o trinco batido. Como não houve testemunhas do acidente, não foi possível saber a génese das causas que desencadearam toda a dinâmica do acidente e continuar a desenvolver a ramificação da árvore. Para o desfecho fatal contribuíram decisões e práticas de insegurança do operador, por falta de habilitação legal e de formação para operar o trator agrícola, bem como a ausência de procedimentos de segurança escritos e claros por parte da entidade empregadora, na utilização do trator agrícola com o carregador frontal.

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)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207