MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407684300 · doi:10.1097/jom.0000000000003332

The Impact of Workplace Heat and Cold on Work Time Loss

2025· article· en· W4407684300 on OpenAlexaff
Leonidas G. Ioannou, Lydia Tsoutsoubi, Konstantinos Mantzios, Γεώργιος Γκίκας, Gerasimos Agaliotis, Yiannis Koutedakis, David García-León, George Havenith, Jack Liang, Costas Arkolakis, Jason Glaser, Glen P. Kenny, Igor B. Mekjavić, Lars Nybo, Andreas D. Flouris

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersInternational Labour OrganizationEuropean Commission
KeywordsWork (physics)EngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the impact of workplace heat and cold on work time loss. METHODS: Field experiments in different industrial sectors were conducted in multiple countries across all seasons between 2016 and 2024. Hundreds of workers were video recorded, and their full shifts (n = 603) were analyzed on a second-by-second basis (n = 16,065,501 seconds). Environmental data were recorded using portable weather stations. The Workplace Environmental Labor Loss (WELL) functions were developed to describe work time loss due to workplace temperature. RESULTS: The WELL functions revealed a U-shaped relationship whereby the least work time loss is observed at 18°C (64°F) and increases for every degree above or below this optimal temperature. CONCLUSIONS: The WELL functions quantify the impact of workplace temperature on work time loss, extending to temperatures previously believed to be unaffected.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations13
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicSleep and Work-Related FatigueFrench-language works237,207