Biomechanics of leaning forward against a support with an extreme standing reach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Back discomfort, lower extremity loading and unbalanced positions may inhibit workers from standing for industrial stationary work. Two forward-leaning supports were compared to unsupported standing during an extreme reach with 30° trunk flexion under varied light load conditions in the outstretched hands. A total of 11 males from the university participated (mean age 30 years [SD = 5]). Link segment modelling showed a 25-30% reduction in the L4/L5 bilateral hip external moments when using a chest-height support. Ribcage expansion with maximal inspiration remained unchanged with an average 85 N of compression force, and low back discomfort remained tolerable for this difficult reach. Leaning against a work table had no influence on L4/L5 moments or back discomfort because contact was at the pelvis; the external moment at the hips decreased by 6%. Postural stability was improved with little migration of the centre of pressure under both supports. Only the chest support showed potential to influence work positioning and prevent back injuries; further study is needed on support forces and usability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".