\n How and Why : A Process Evaluation Proposal to\n Assess the Development Phase of Ergonomic Interventions\n
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ergonomic interventions assessed by way of experimental methods appear to be over-simplified when they are limited to a standardized solution for a large number of workers. These interventions differ greatly from interventions provided by ergonomists out in the field who carry out a complex, participatory, change process closely adapted to an organization’s context. In such complex interventions, ergonomists carry out numerous actions before specific work modifications are implemented, but these actions are almost never mentioned in evaluation studies. The goal of this article is to present the methodological framework of a process evaluation focussing on the development phase of complex ergonomic interventions, the development phase occurring prior to the implementation of work modifications. The collection of quantitative and qualitative data in real time through a logbook, document analysis, and semi-structured interviews is proposed. This process evaluation model should provide knowledge of the actions that led to changes in specific contexts and that may represent the transferable aspect of the intervention to future interventions carried out in similar contexts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".