Manual Materials Handling in Simulated Motion Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seafaring occupations have been shown to place operators at an increased risk for injury. The purpose of this study was to understand better the demands of a moving environment on the ability of a person to perform specific lifting tasks. Subjects lifted a 15-kg load under four different lifting conditions. A 6-degree-of-freedom ship motion simulator imposed repeatable deck motions under foot while subjects executed the lifting tasks. Subjects were oriented in three different positions on the simulator floor to inflict different motion profiles. Electromyographic records of four muscles were collected bilaterally, and thoracolumbar kinematics were measured. A repeated-measures ANOVA was employed to assess trunk motions and muscle activities across lifting and motion conditions. The erector spinae muscles showed a trend toward significant differences for motion effects. Maximal sagittal velocities were significantly smaller for all motion states in comparison with the stable condition (p <or= .01), whereas maximum twisting and lateral bending velocities were higher (p <or= .05). Results suggest working in a moving environment will likely increase the operator's risk for overexertion injuries, particularly to the trunk region.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".