Coupling force-adjusted hand-arm vibration exposure and its long-term associated hazard assessment concerning musculoskeletal disorders – methodological comparisons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When holding or carrying vibrating machines, the coupling forces play a major role in transmitting the vibrations to the hand-arm system. In an epidemiologic study, two recommended methods from ISO/TS 15230-2 are used to investigate the relationship between coupling force-adjusted vibration exposures and their related risk of musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb. Therefore, coupling forces have been professionally estimated for 408 machines used by 683 male participants during their entire working life and coupling force-adjusted long-term vibration doses are calculated. Despite different approaches of the two methods, overall lower dose values are correlated to the risk of musculoskeletal disorders if the coupling force was adjusted. Considering the 10% increased risk of musculoskeletal disorders, the original cumulative vibration doses of 19571 m2/s4 fell to 15995 m2/s4 and 18119 m2/s4 according to two different coupling force-adjusted doses. These results show the necessity of consideration of coupling forces, especially for on-body measurements.
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 | 0.031 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".