MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099453357

STUDY PROTOCOL Use of pedometer-driven r a a

2016· article· en· W7099453357 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeat packing industryWork (physics)Hazardous wasteIncidence (geometry)Occupational injury
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Full list of author information is available at the end of the articleportant sector in the New Zealand (NZ) economy, employing approximately 24,000 workers, and contrib-uting approximately 13 % of New Zealand’s exports [1]. Meat processing involves different work stages that in-clude slaughtering, boning, cutting, and packing, which demand different physical workloads and tasks. These often require prolonged periods in task-related non-neutral postures, potentially leading to an increased risk of occupational injuries. are varied, with musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) being a commonly reported health problem [2-4]. Relevant risk factors include hazardous working conditions [4,5] with repetitive movements, heavy physical workload, and sus-tained standing [6-8] that have been linked to increased levels of disability, sick leave, and work incapacity [9]. The prevalence of MSD among meat processing workers has been previously published [2]. For example meat processing in the USA is considered one of the most hazardous industries, with an overall incidence injury rate of 6.9 per 100 fulltime workers in 2009 [10], while in Canada, the incidence injury rate was 23.48 per 1,000

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1200.025

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal DisordersFrench-language works237,207