Effect of backpack load placement on posture and spinal curvature in prepubescent children
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parents, educators and researchers have expressed concern about the long term impacts of children carrying excessive loads in their backpacks on a daily basis. Although many researchers have investigated appropriate weight limits for children's packs, little research has been conducted on the design of children's backpacks. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the changes in children's trunk forward lean (TFL), cranio-vertebral angle (CVA) and spinal lordosis angle (LA) that occurred with high, medium and low load locations during standing and walking. Ten-year-old children (n = 15) completed a repeated measures designed study while carrying 15% of each child's body weight in a typical backpack with only shoulder straps. A special instrumented backpack (IBP) was designed that allowed the weight to be placed in the proper location and continuously measure changes in spinal curvature. TFL and CVA postures were captured on digital video at five intervals including: standing without a backpack prior to a 1000 m walk; standing with a backpack at the beginning and end of a 1000 m walk; and walking with a backpack at the beginning and end of a 1000 m walk. Results indicated that significant changes occurred in TFL and CVA when the backpack was loaded to 15% body weight. The low load placement in the backpack produced fewer changes in CVA from the initial standing baseline measure than the high and mid placements. When all measures were assessed collectively, there were fewer changes in LA in the low load placement. These findings indicate that future backpack designs should place loads lower on the spine in order to minimize children's postural adaptations.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it