Biomechanical Technique Changes in Males and Females during a Prolonged Asymmetrical Lifting Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine biomechanical differences between genders during a prolonged fatiguing asymmetric lifting task. Thirty-seven participants performed an asymmetrical lifting task over a period of 75 minutes at a rate of six lifts per minute. The lift envelope started from the floor directly in front of the participant to a shelf 60 degrees to the right of the sagittal plane at a normalized height to the participant’s anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS). A handled box weighing 10% of the participants’ predetermined maximum lifting capacity was used as the lifting object. Electromagnetic tracking sensors were used to provide kinetic and kinematic data. Eleven sensors were affixed bilaterally to the participant’s hands, arms, and trunk. Strong indicators for fatigue were found after the lifting task. Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE) increased over time and maximal voluntary exertion in back and shoulder extension decreased post lifting. Kinematic changes were altered over time, more markedly in females than males, suggesting that biomechanical differences exist during similar tasks due to factors associated with gender. Males and females differ in their response to a fatigued state during the same asymmetric lifting task. Given that current ergonomic practice is based on gender neutralized or androcentric design, the difference in response between males and females to the same stimuli suggests that current workplace interventions may not be equally effective for both sexes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".