Multi-Axis Sinusoidal Whole-Body Vibrations: Part I — How Long Should the Vibration and Rest Exposures Be for Reliable Discomfort Measures?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laboratory-based whole-body vibration studies often involve complex experimental designs, dozens of vibration exposures and multiple sessions. Shortening the test vibration duration would increase experimental efficiency by permitting more trials in the same time period. This study evaluated reported discomfort based on different sinusoidal vibration durations and amounts of rest between successive vibrations. Ten subjects were exposed to four blocks of vibration trials (15/20 second vibration and 5/10 second rest durations). Each block of 37 trials included repeated single axis, planar, and 6 degree of freedom multi-axial vibrations. These repeated trials were analysed to evaluate whether discomfort varied between the different blocks. We did not observe any statistically significant differences in discomfort between the different vibration and rest durations. This finding is useful for designing future vibration experiments. Part II of this study evaluates the relationship between discomfort and vibration exposure.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".