Utility of using a force and moment wrench to describe hand demand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was undertaken to evaluate the utility of using a force and moment wrench to describe the demand on the distal arm tissues and perceived exertion during static gripping tasks. Five right hand dominant university students, who were free of hand or wrist disorders, completed a total of 87 maximum and submaximum gripping tasks. All trials were completed while standing, with the arm adducted and elbow flexed to ninety degrees. The wrist posture was near neutral in all axes during the exertions. Activation levels for muscles of the forearm and hand and rating of perceived exertion were collected. Participants handled objects using 3 grips (cylindrical grip, lateral pinch and pulp pinch) in 8 different ways. The equivalent force and moment wrench for the tasks were also exerted on a modified pinch/grip dynamometer, affixed to a six degree of freedom force cube. This instrumentation allowed the simultaneous collection of the 3 forces, 3 moments and the pinch/grip force about the grip centre. It was expected that the demands of a task and the instrumented task wrench reproduction would be the same, and therefore the slope of the linear regression for the EMG and RPE scatterplots would be equal to one. The RPE slopes ranged from 0.99 (lateral pinch) to 1.11 (cylindrical grip), with R2 greater than 0.89 for all grips. The mean slope for EMG of all muscles ranged from 0.89 (lateral pinch) to 1.38 (pulp pinch), with mean R2 of 0.61 to 0.68. The force and moment wrench system for the categorization of prehension appears to capture the demands on the distal arm tissues and perceived exertion during standardized laboratory holding tasks.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".