MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Isometric Pull-Push Strengths in Workspace: 2. Analysis of Spatial Factors

2004· article· en· W1892849778 on OpenAlexaff
Biman Das, Yanqing Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsometric exercisePosition (finance)MathematicsOrthodonticsPhysicsPhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of reach levels, horizontal angles and vertical angles on isometric pull and push strengths of males and females in standing and seated positions was determined. The effect of reach levels on strength varied as a consequence of force direction, working position and gender. Reach level has a significant effect on women's pull strength in the seated position and on push strength in the standing position. The strength value was significantly greater in the extreme reach than in maximum or normal reach. Vertical angle phi had a significant effect on strength consistently in all cases. Strength values increased significantly with the increase of phi angles from 0 degrees to 45 degrees to 90 degrees. The horizontal angle theta had a significant influence only on the pull strength of standing and seated men and standing women (not seated woman). The maximum strength was significantly greater at theta = 90 degrees.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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