Multi-Axis Sinusoidal Whole-Body Vibrations: Part II — Relationship between Vibration Total Value and Discomfort Varies between Vibration Axes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of vibration duration and the amount of rest between successive vibrations was addressed in Part I of this study. The relationship between discomfort and Vibration Total Value for different axes of vibration is assessed in Part II. Ten subjects were exposed to repeated single axis, planar, and 6 degree of freedom multi-axial vibrations. We observed statistically significant differences in discomfort between the different axes of vibration for similar ranges of Vibration Total Values. In particular. we observed that discomfort reports for vibrations in the Z axis and XY plane were less than discomfort reports associated with XZ plane and 6 df vibrations when the same range of Vibration Total Values were compared. Furthermore, single axis vertical vibrations were typically associated with less discomfort than multi-axis vibrations when similar ranges of Vibration Total Values were compared. This finding infers that the frequency weighting scheme presented in ISO 2631–1 does not achieve inter-axis equivalence and indicates that a more comprehensive study of multi-axis vibration is required to suggest changes to the ISO 2631–1 weighting factors.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".