MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117478259 · doi:10.1080/10803548.2025.2594907

Posture, machinery and risk: ergonomic characterization of industrial driving work in forklifts and electric pallet trucks

2025· article· en· W7117478259 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriela P. Urrejola-Contreras, Elena Ronda, Mònica Rodríguez-Bagó, José Miguel Martínez

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalletTruckHuman factors and ergonomicsWork (physics)Bottling lineOccupational safety and health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives. The use of machinery in industrial tasks like load transportation exposes workers to ergonomic risk factors, particularly from non-neutral postures, increasing the chance of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). This study aimed to assess posture-related ergonomic risk among forklift and electric pallet truck operators. Methods. Conducted at a beverage bottling plant in Viña del Mar, Chile, the cross-sectional study involved 75 operators. Personal and occupational data were gathered through questionnaires, and the rapid entire body assessment (REBA) method was used to evaluate postural risk based on video analysis during machine operation. Results. Findings revealed that 49.3% of workers were at high ergonomic risk and 50.7% at very high risk, with pallet truck operation strongly associated with increased ergonomic risk (odds ratio [OR] 6.7; 95% confidence interval [2.5, 19.5]). The most significant risk factors were operating electric pallet trucks and being aged under 30 years. Pallet truck operation was strongly associated with increased ergonomic risk (crude OR 6.7), especially in workers with less experience. Conclusion. The study concludes that targeted ergonomic interventions, such as redesigning handle height or improving vibration isolation systems in electric pallet trucks, may be essential to protect younger and less experienced 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Occupational Safety and ErgonomicsSame topicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal DisordersFrench-language works237,207