Effects of standing and sitting postures on an isoinertial pulling task
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effects that specific postures had on the neuromuscular activities of four muscles during an isoinertial pulling task. Ten male subjects volunteered to execute one-handed pulls at 15% of their body mass, at a frequency of 12 pulls per minute, for a duration of 12.5 minutes in both a standing and sitting posture. Electromyographical (EMG) activities of the posterior deltoid, trapezius, latissimus dorsi and erector spinae ( L 4 / L 5 level) were recorded by a portable data collection system using bipolar surface electrode configurations. Collected EMG data were subsequently analysed for differences in magnitude and rate of fatigue between conditions. Heart rates were also recorded for both conditions. Cardiovascular and neurophysiological responses provided no evidence of fatigue due to the execution of the task, suggesting that these workload and postures would be suitable for industrial applications. Analyses revealed significant differences between conditions in the level of activation for all muscles except the trapezius, suggesting that muscle recruitment is highly influenced by posture during common pulling activities. These findings support a conclusion that an operator performing repetitive submaximal (i.e. less than 15% of a subject's absolute body mass) pulling tasks would benefit from a workstation designed to accommodate standing and sitting postures in order to vary the manner in which agonist muscles are recruited.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it