Control of posture during tasks representing common work-related postures – a reliability study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessment of control of posture using a task battery that represents work-related postural conditions is highly recommended for providing a comprehensive understanding of collective postural demands. However, dearth of evidence exists on the reliability of a task battery, thus precluding its use as an outcome measure in field research. This study investigated the intrasession reliability and systematic variation of force plate derived centre of pressure (COP) measures obtained during repeated performance of a task battery (lifting task, limits of stability and bipedal and unipedal stance). COP signals obtained during each task performance were processed to derive various time-domain COP measures. Statistical analyses revealed that 13 of the 19 COP measures displayed excellent relative (ICC(2,3) ≥ 0.75) and acceptable absolute reliability (SEM%: ≤ 10). Although COP measures displayed systematic variation, the differences were less or equal to the measurement error, except COP measures of unipedal stance and limits of stability. The chosen task battery is reliable and can be used for comprehensive evaluation of control of posture, in both field and laboratory research. Practitioner Summary: Repeated evaluation of multiple tasks together sequentially could introduce measurement variability. This study investigated intrasession reliability of a task battery representing common work-related postures. The chosen task battery was found to be reliable with acceptable measurement error and can be used in field research settings for evaluation of control of posture.
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 | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".