Ergonomik Risk Taşıyan Masa Başı Çalışanlarda Skapular Hareket Bozukluklarının İncelenmesi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the scapular dyskinesis, pain, neck and shoulder disability, posture and quality of life in office workers in TRNC according to ergonomic principles of participants and compare the differences between groups. As a result of ergonomic risk assessment two groups have been determined that 1. group not need to immediate change and 2. group need to further investigation and changes of are required soon. Ergonomic risk assessment has been evaluated, Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA); for scapular dysfunction, Lateral Scapular Slide Test (LSST); for the assessment of pain, Short Form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ); for disability, Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder & Hand (Q- DASH) and Neck Disability İndex (NDİ); for posture analysis, photographic method; and for quality of life ,The Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) were applied. According to the comparison between the groups, significant differences were determined at pain, disability and quality of life in the 2. group (p<0.05). Consequently, pre-determining the occupational risk factors that negatively affect the musculoskeletal system, raising awareness, ergonomic training for the correct working posture and proper body mechanics of office workers is important as in all professions.
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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".