MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094812328 · doi:10.1504/ijhfms.2014.067165

The influence of muscle action on joint loading during dynamic finger pressing tasks in an open-source modelling environment

2014· article· en· W2094812328 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander MacIntosh, Nicolas Vignais, David M. Cocchiarella, Aaron M. Kociolek, Peter J. Keir

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Human Factors Modelling and Simulation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsKinematicsJoint (building)Metacarpophalangeal jointComputer sciencePressingInverse dynamicsWork (physics)SimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationKnuckleStructural engineeringEngineeringThumbMedicineMechanical engineeringSurgeryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessing finger joint loading is essential to the prevention of work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the hand and fingers. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of muscle action on joint loading during dynamic finger pressing tasks using an open-source musculoskeletal modelling platform. Eight participants performed submaximal dynamic index finger pressing tasks while maintaining a nominal vertical target force of 10 N. Kinematic and force data were used to develop and assess an inverse dynamics link segment model and a musculoskeletal model. Although musculoskeletal model results for metacarpophalangeal joint compression evaluated statically (34.92 ± 1.53 N) and dynamically (34.80 ± 4.40 N) did not differ, changes in anterior-posterior shear and compression throughout the motions identify where the current open-source model is able to provide valuable insight into the assessment of risk of developing MSD during sub-maximally loaded dynamic pressing tasks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.273
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Human Factors Modelling and SimulationSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207