Investigation of pacing as a control measure for an industrial lifting task above waist height
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In industrial supply companies, the pressure for productivity can conflict with the ergonomic safety of material handling on the loading dock, with workers tending to rush through the lifting tasks at the expense of higher biomechanical loads. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was to determine: a) the potential benefit of introducing an ergonomic safety initiative, which slows the speed of lifting, and b) the need to use more complex biomechanical models in work assessments. PARTICIPANTS: One experienced worker and nine university male students between the ages of 22 and 42 participated in this study; all reported no recent history of musculoskeletal injuries. METHODS: The investigation involved stacking empty propane cylinders, one on top of the other, while using a single-handed lift at a self-selected slow and fast pace, and lifting small, weighted beverage bottles at a slow, medium and fast pace, this time using a metronome to set the pace. RESULTS: The results demonstrated a significant main effect for lift pace for both peak static and dynamic external moments at the shoulder and at L4/L5, with a larger effect occurring with the lighter loads. A reduction in peak acceleration with heavier weights partially explained the confounding influence from load. Significant differences occurred between the peak static moments according to load, suggesting an accommodation in the lift strategy. There were also significant differences between the static and dynamic external moments, which became meaningful when the lift pace was medium or fast, suggesting that a dynamic analysis is not necessary if the pace is slow. CONCLUSION: This investigation further supports that the pace of lifting is an important work factor in safe lifting and material handling.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".