Neck Biomechanics and Multiple Wide Computer Displays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computer workstations are increasingly being fitted with multiple large displays. Display placement influences head posture and neck symptoms but the effects of multiple displays are not well known. This study evaluated the placement of two wide displays over a large range of heights and distances. Twenty participants performed internet search tasks with the search window at thirty-six positions, defined by three distances from the eyes (50 to 86 cm), three gaze angles (0 to 28° below the eye horizon), and four lateral distances from the mid-sagittal plane (13 and 32 cm to the left and to the right). Motion capture equipment tracked head and neck postures and simulation software calculated muscular capacities. Regression analyses demonstrated significant ( p < 0.001) effects of gaze angle on neck flexion, lateral angle on neck rotation, and the interaction of gaze angle and lateral angle on neck lateral flexion. The moment generating capacities of the trapezius and splenius muscles, and the self-selected display positions, suggest that increases in wide display's field-of-view should be biased vertically (upward).
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".