MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082707969 · doi:10.1080/00140139.2013.842656

Comparisons of apparent mass responses of human subjects seated on rigid and elastic seats under vertical vibration

2013· article· en· W2082707969 on OpenAlex
K.N. Dewangan, Subhash Rakheja, Pierre Marcotte, A. Shahmir, S. K. Patra

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueErgonomics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Vibration on Health
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityInstitut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVibrationAccelerationStructural engineeringRange (aeronautics)Pressure measurementAcousticsMechanicsMaterials sciencePhysicsMathematicsEngineeringClassical mechanicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The apparent mass (AM) responses of human body seated on elastic seat, without and with a vertical back support, are measured using a seat pressure sensing mat under three levels of vertical vibration (0.25, 0.50 and 0.75 m/s(2) rms acceleration) in 0.50-20 Hz frequency range. The responses were also measured with a rigid seat using the pressure mat and a force plate in order to examine the validity of the pressure mat. The pressure mat resulted in considerably lower AM magnitudes compared to the force plate. A correction function was proposed and applied, which resulted in comparable AM from both measurement systems for the rigid seat. The correction function was subsequently applied to derive AM of subjects seated on elastic seat. The responses revealed lower peak magnitude and corresponding frequency compared to those measured with rigid seat, irrespective of back support and excitation considered.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.287 · 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