Spinal shrinkage during repetitive controlled torsional, flexion and lateral bend motion exertions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".