Energy expenditure while performing gymnastic-like motion in spacelab during spaceflight: case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To estimate energy cost of a gymnastic-like exercise performed by an astronaut during spaceflight (cosmic exercise), energy expenditure was determined by measuring mechanical work done around the center of mass (COM) of the body. The cosmic exercise, which consisted of whole-body flexion and extension, was performed during a spaceflight and recorded with a video camera. By analyzing the videotape, the internal mechanical work (W(int)) against inertia load of the body segments was calculated. To compare how human muscles work on Earth, a motion similar to the cosmic exercise was performed by a control subject who had a physique similar to that of the astronaut. The total mechanical power of the astronaut was determined to be about 119 W; although the control subject showed a similar total power value, half of the power was external work (W(ext)) against gravitational load. By assuming a mechanical efficiency of 0.25, the energy expenditure was estimated to be 476 W or 7.7 W/kg, which is equivalent to that expended during fast walking and half of that used during moderate-speed running. Our results suggest that this form of cosmic exercise is appropriate for astronauts in space and can be performed safely, as there are no COM shifts while floating in a spacecraft and no vibratory disturbance.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".