MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6977171384 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.15222565

An exploratory survey of heat stress management programs in the electric power industry

2021· article· en· W6977171384 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Administration and Political Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeat stressWork (physics)Occupational safety and healthExploratory researchStress managementHeat illnessHazardStress (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Workers in the electric power industry commonly perform physically demanding jobs in hot environments, which combined with the protective clothing worn, places them at risk of disease and health problems related to occupational heat stress. With climate change fueling an increase in the occurrence of hot weather, a targeted approach to heat stress management within the industry is needed. To better understand current heat management practices and identify opportunities for refinement, we conducted an exploratory survey among 33 electric utility companies operating in the United States (n = 32) and Canada (n = 1). Forty-six employees responsible for health and safety of company workers completed 26 questions assessing heat stress as a workplace hazard and heat management practices within five categories: (1) use and administration of heat stress management program; (2) surveillance of heat stress and heat strain; (3) job evaluation and heat-mitigation guidance; (4) education and training programs; and (5) treatment of heat-related illness. While a majority of the respondents (87.0%) indicated heat stress is a workplace hazard and their organization has a heat stress management program (78.3%), less than half reported performing real-time monitoring of heat stress in the workplace (47.8%) or tracking worker heat strain (19.6%) (i.e., physiological response to heat stress). However, most organizations indicated they conducted pre-job evaluations for heat stress (71.7%) and implemented an employee training program on managing heat stress (73.9%). The latter included instruction on various short- and long-term heat-mitigation guidance for workers (e.g., use of work exposure limits, hydration protocols) and the prevention (52.2%) and treatment (63.1%) of heat-related illnesses. Altogether, our survey demonstrates that although many companies employ some form of a heat management program, the basic components defining the programs vary and are lacking for some companies. To maximize worker health and safety during work in hot environments, a consensus-based approach, which considers the five basic components of a heat management program, should be employed to formulate effective practices and methodologies for creating an industry-specific heat management strategy.

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)0.004
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicPublic Administration and Political AnalysisFrench-language works237,207