MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130119731 · doi:10.1080/00140130010008129

Spinal shrinkage during repetitive controlled torsional, flexion and lateral bend motion exertions

2001· article· en· W2130119731 on OpenAlex
G. Au, Julie Cook, Stuart M. McGill

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueErgonomics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of WaterlooMcGill University
KeywordsShrinkageOrthodonticsRange of motionBody segmentPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTask (project management)Structural engineeringMathematicsMedicinePhysical therapyEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This experiment analysed the spinal shrinkage due to repetitive exertions confined to each of three separate axes (twist, lateral bend, flexion). While the experiment was performed twice with small technique modifications in the twisting task (and thus two data collections were performed), the essential components were as follows. A total of 20 subjects were loaded with an equal moment of 20 Nm in each of the three axes, on 3 separate days (one axis per day). Subjects performed each task for 20 min at 10 repetitions min(-1), where stadiometer measurements of standing height were taken prior to and immediately following the 20 min exertion. The twisting task demonstrated significant spinal shrinkage (1.81 and 3.2 mm in the two experiments) between the pre- and post-stature measurements while no clear effect emerged for the other two tasks. These data suggest that repetitive torsional motions impose a larger cumulative loading on the spine when compared with controlled lateral or flexion motion tasks of a similar moment.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.266 · 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