Incidence of Low Back Pain and Disability among Postal Office Workers by using Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to assess the incidence of low back pain disability among postal office workers by using the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS). The present study was also to understand about how this discomfort affected their daily activities and work performance. The Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire (CMDQ) was used to assess the frequency, severity, and extent to which musculoskeletal discomfort interfered with their work in the past week. The research was conducted among the postal office worker in several region of Navi Mumbai, total 80 participants were voluntarily participated, self-administered questionnaires and data collection sheet were given. The data were statistically analyzed using MS excel. The incidence of low-back pain among postal office workers was high, due to their nature of job which requires prolonged sitting in inappropriate postures, use of computer frequently and lack of physical exercise. Therefore, workplace ergonomics measure and therapeutic interventions are recommended to minimize the burden of low back pain among postal office workers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".