MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019906542 · doi:10.1080/00140130410001699155

The influence of a back support harness on spinal forces during sheep shearing

2004· article· en· W2019906542 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephan Milosavljevic, Allan Carman, Peter Milburn, Barry D. Wilson, Peter L. Davidson

Bibliographic record

VenueErgonomics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShearing (physics)Shear forceEngineeringBiomechanicsMechanical engineeringPhysical medicine and rehabilitationForensic engineeringAeronauticsStructural engineeringAnatomyMedicineGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research has classified the occupation of sheep shearing as heavy work where shearers flex their spine and hips for long periods of time, handle awkward loads and expend high amounts of energy. The aim of this research was to investigate the magnitude of spinal forces produced during the shearing phase of the work and to determine whether the use of a commercially available back support harness would reduce these forces. Following discussion on task complexity and risk of back injury with senior shearing instructors, three component tasks of the shearing phase were identified as posing high risk of injury and were prioritized for primary analysis. Although the dragging out of a sheep in preparation for shearing and an unexpected loss of animal control were also identified as being of high risk, technological and instrumentation difficulties precluded their analysis. Twelve experienced shearers were videotaped while shearing with and without the use of a back harness. Surface mounted retro-reflective markers placed on the trunk defined three linked segments: Pelvis, Lumbar and Head, Arms, and Upper Trunk (HAUT). A 3D, link segment, top down, inverse dynamics approach was used to describe the motion and to estimate forces involved during the identified tasks of shearing. The spinal force/time profiles of this sample of shearers demonstrated large compressive and shear forces for all three tasks that are close to the NIOSH and University of Waterloo action limits for compressive and shear forces respectively (McGill 1997, Yingling and McGill 1999, Marras 2000). The use of the back support harness reduced these forces by substantial and statistically significant amounts. This effect was consistent across all three tasks. The results of this study demonstrate the production of high levels of compressive and shear forces within the spine of shearers during the three shearing tasks studied and that the use of a back support harness can substantially reduce these forces. Therefore the use of a back harness may reduce the cumulative load on the spine during shearing thereby moderating damage to the articular structures. However it is not known whether the harness would protect the spine from a sudden or unexpected force.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations18
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueErgonomicsSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207