MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Isometric Pull and Push Strengths of Paraplegics in the Workspace: 1. Strength Measurement Profiles

2000· article· en· W1550020012 on OpenAlexaff
Biman Das, Nancy L. Black

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MonctonDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsometric exerciseOrthodonticsPush pullPush and pullMathematicsPhysical therapyMedicineEngineeringElectrical engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The isometric strength profiles of male and female paraplegics were determined for pull and push strengths in the normal, maximum, and extreme working reach envelopes. A computerized isometric strength measurement system was designed and constructed for the purpose. The strongest pull location was at extreme reach vertically above the shoulder and the strength values for males and females were 473 and 318 newtons (N), respectively. The strongest push location was at maximum reach, at vertical (phi) angle of 45 degrees and at horizontal (theta) angle of 45 degrees for males and at 0 degrees for women and the strength values were 235 and 172 N, respectively. The nature of the strength profiles was found to be similar for both the sexes. The pull and push strengths of the female were 77 and 68% that of the male, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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