Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exerting a force on a mechanical system can induce mechanical instability. To overcome that instability, humans may take advantage of their upper limb mechanical impedance (e.g., hand stiffness). The authors investigated what stiffness is required to maintain static stability and how humans can achieve that stiffness in the context of the task of pushing on a pivoting stick. Results showed that the stiffness required is in the range of measured human upper limb stiffness. To avoid an ill-posed problem, one can better express the requirements for stability as a simple geometrical criterion related to the curvature of the potential energy field at the hand. A planar model of the upper limb revealed that individuals can use both hand rotational and translational stiffness to stabilize a stick. Although hand rotational stiffness does not participate in producing the axial force on the stick, it can significantly contribute to achieving a limb stiffness appropriate for maintaining static stability. Hand rotational stiffness can be important for the design of hand tools, because humans can increase it only by augmenting grip force, a biomechanical factor associated with cumulative trauma injuries of the upper extremities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".