Effect of different seat support characteristics on the neck and trunk muscles and forward head posture of visual display terminal workers
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
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to identify the effect of seat support characteristics on the neck and trunk muscles and forward head posture of visual display terminal (VDT) workers working at computers. PARTICIPANTS: 22 VDT workers with forward head posture were asked to perform computer work. METHODS: Surface electromyography recorded the five neck and trunk muscles Forward head angle was analyzed with a 3-D motion analysis system. The significance of differences in the seat supports (hard, spongy, unstable) was tested by repeated one-way ANOVA with the significance cutoff set at alpha = 0.05. RESULTS: Computer work seated on an unstable cushion-ball as compared to a spongy soft-cushion seat support showed significantly lower midcervical and L5 paraspinal muscle activity and significantly higher lower trapezius and internal oblique abdominal muscle activity. The mean forward head angle decreased in the order of spongy, hard, and unstable seat supports. CONCLUSIONS: An unstable cushion-ball seat support may prevent work-related neck and upper limb disorders associated with forward head posture.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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