Biomechanical assessment of lateral stiffness elements in the suspension system of a backpack
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the change in load distribution characteristics associated with adding lateral stiffness elements (rods) to a rucksack (backpack). A load distribution mannequin was instrumented with two 3D load cells to allow determination of the load applied to the shoulders and upper torso independent of the load applied to the hips and lower trunk. Position and mass of the payload (25 kg) were fixed at the centre of the volume of the rucksack and held constant during all testing. It was hypothesized that lateral rods would provide a force bridge that transfers part of the vertical load of the pack from the upper back and shoulders to the hip belt thereby reducing the vertical load on the torso, and possibly reducing the horizontal reaction force that produces a shear load on the spine. Results showed that these active stiffness elements shifted 14% of the vertical load from the upper torso to the pelvic region with lumbar shear load remaining relatively unchanged for all combinations of shoulder strap and waist belt tension. The lateral rods also provided a mean increase of 12% in the extensor moment at the L3-L4 level, thus reducing some demand on the erector spinae muscles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".