MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1937803861 · doi:10.3233/wor-2005-00407

The etiology of low back pain in military helicopter aviators: Prevention and treatment

2005· article· en· W1937803861 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWork · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAircrewCrewAeronauticsAviation medicineLow back painEtiologySittingPsychological interventionPhysical therapyMedicineEngineeringPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low back pain (LPB) is a major health problem among military rotary-wing aircrews worldwide. In order to define the etiology and propose remedies to LBP in helicopter aviators a review and critique of the literature was conducted. In-flight sitting posture and vibration generated by the aircraft were identified as high risk factors for LBP. Consequently, researchers recommended ergonomic modifications to the crew stations. The efficacy of these technical interventions has not been proven. As well, these design changes are not financially practical. Following an in depth kinesiological analysis of the physical demands of this type of flying, and preliminary experimentation, an alternative aeromedical approach focusing on the aircrew rather than the craft is presented. The authors propose a set of flight-specific exercises that might effectively deal with this problem. A thorough testing of this approach is envisioned.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.257 · 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