Pushing and pulling: personal mechanics influence spine loads
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed several mechanical issues related to low back loading during pushing and/or pulling tasks. Nine male participants performed two-handed pushing and pulling tasks at two handle heights with three loads, using a cable pulley system. Four of these men were professional firefighters trained in performing pushing and pulling tasks while the other five were graduate students who lacked manual work experience. The more experienced firefighters produced less spinal compression and shearing forces when compared to the less experienced students under the same conditions. The firefighters were able to create less muscle activation as compared to the students, which indicated a more efficient technique. The main contributing factors to the forces produced on the low back were the quantity of the load being pushed or pulled, handle height, experience level and the technique of the participant. Thus, attempts to set load limits for pushing and pulling tasks are difficult, since technique has such a large influence on back loading. In order to create safer working environments, education on proper pushing and pulling techniques is very important--more important than the physical variables in many cases.
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 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 it