AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BARRIERS OF ADOPTING ERGONOMICS PRACTICES IN THE NIGERIAN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Construction industry is a high risk industry for Musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) which has been identified as a drain to construction health, safety and productivity. Ergonomics is one of the solutions to reducing Musculoskeletal injures in the construction industry. Ergonomics have been successfully implemented in developed countries like America, Canada, United Kingdom, Sweden and in South Africa in improving health and safety on construction sites. The aim of the paper is to investigate the challenges of adopting ergonomics in the Nigerian building industry with a view to enhancing health and safety management. The research also seeks to know why it has not been adopted in Nigeria and find ways to enhance adoption. This was achieved through administration of Two hundred and eighty questionnaires to Professionals, Safety Officers, and Craftsmen on construction sites within the Federal Capital Territory, Kaduna and Kano states. Data were analysed using mean and percentage. Findings reveal that the level of awareness of ergonomics in the Nigerian building industry is low. The study also found out that back injury, discomfort in the shoulder and discomfort in the knee are the most common ergonomic injury on building construction sites. The study concludes that inadequate knowledge and understanding of ergonomics in the industry, lack of legislation enforcing ergonomics practices, high cost of procuring ergonomic equipment and ergonomics not considered during design phase are the factors militating against adoption of ergonomics. The study recommends training of stakeholders (professionals, craftsmen and labourers) on construction ergonomics at all levels in the construction industry. The study recommends introducing ergonomics in the syllabus of construction related courses in tertiary institutions, continuous professional development of professional bodies and apprenticeship training of craftsmen. It is also recommended that Government should pass the national building code and Ergonomics should be included in Health and safety plan which would form part of contract documents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".