Investigation of the Frequency and Force of Chest Vibration Performed by Physiotherapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the frequency and force of chest vibration as applied by 18 physiotherapists working in a teaching hospital. METHOD: CHEST VIBRATION WAS APPLIED TO A HEALTHY ADULT MALE LYING SUPINE ON A PLINTH WITH SEVEN MOUNTED SENSORS MEASURING FREQUENCY AND FORCE, DURING THREE TEST CONDITIONS: (1) directly on the chest, (2) on the chest through a layer of sheet, and (3) on the chest through a layer of towelling. The influence of gender and current practice area (physiotherapists working in cardiopulmonary areas [cardiopulmonary physiotherapists] and physiotherapists who presently did not work in the cardiopulmonary area, but had treated cardiopulmonary patients within the last year [general practice physiotherapists]) on the frequency and force of chest vibrations was examined. RESULTS: Physiotherapists demonstrated a mean frequency of 5.7, 5.3, and 5 Hz and a mean maximum force of 272.78, 273.47, and 271.13 N for conditions 1, 2, and 3 respectively. There were no significant differences in the frequency or forces generated by vibration between cardiopulmonary and general practice physiotherapists, between genders, or among the three test conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Vibration frequency was lower and force higher than previously recorded. Force may vary depending on the patient. The addition of a sheet or towel did not affect the force or frequency of vibration compared to vibration performed directly on the chest.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".