Estimation of the Transmissibility of Anti-Vibration Gloves when Used with Specific Tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anti-vibration gloves are increasingly being used as personal protective equipment to help reduce the hazards of hand-transmitted vibration. A vibration transfer function method for estimating the tool-specific performance of anti-vibration gloves has been proposed to help select appropriate gloves for particular tools and to assess the potential risks posed by tool vibration. This study evaluates the validity of the method by comparing the predicted vibration transmissibility with the measured value. Two typical vibration-attenuating gloves (air-bladder and visco-elastic material gloves) were used in the study. Two series of experiments were performed for the evaluation. In the first series, the isolation efficiency of selected anti-vibration gloves was evaluated in the laboratory under synthesized handle vibration spectra of six different tools. The second series of tests involved the measurement of the glove transmissibility, while operating two different pneumatic chipping hammers. The results of the study show reasonably good agreements between the predicted and measured acceleration transmissibility values of the candidate gloves. It is thus concluded that the transfer function method provides a reasonably good estimate of vibration attenuation performance of gloves for specific tools.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".