MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032508422 · doi:10.1080/00140139.2014.884247

Frequency of postural changes during sitting whilst using a desktop computer – exploring an analytical methodology

2014· article· en· W2032508422 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sjan-Mari van Niekerk, Quinette Louw, Karen Grimmer

Bibliographic record

VenueErgonomics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorMcGill University
KeywordsSittingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationObservational studyPhysical therapyPsychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsComputer scienceSimulationMedicinePoison controlMathematicsStatisticsMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Dynamic movement whilst sitting is advocated as a way to reduce musculoskeletal symptoms from seated activities. Conventionally, in ergonomics research, only a 'snapshot' of static sitting posture is captured, which does not provide information on the number or type of movements over a period of time. A novel approach to analyse the number of postural changes whist sitting was employed in order to describe the sitting behaviour of adolescents whilst undertaking computing activities. METHODS: A repeated-measures observational study was conducted. A total of 12 high school students were randomly selected from a conveniently selected school. Fifteen minutes of 3D posture measurements were recorded to determine the number of postural changes whilst using computers. RESULTS: Data of 11 students were able to be analysed. Large intra-subject variation of the median and IQR was observed, indicating frequent postural changes whilst sitting. CONCLUSION: Better understanding of usual dynamic postural movements whilst sitting will provide new insights into causes of musculoskeletal symptoms experienced by computer users.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.186 · 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.

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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueErgonomicsSame topicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal DisordersFrench-language works237,207