Characterization of the protective capacity of flooring systems using force-deflection profiling
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
'Safety floors' aim to decrease the risk of fall-related injuries by absorbing impact energy during falls. Ironically, excessive floor deflection during walking or standing may increase fall risk. In this study we used a materials testing system to characterize the ability of a range of floors to absorb energy during simulated head and hip impacts while resisting deflection during simulated single-leg stance. We found that energy absorption for all safety floors (mean (SD)=14.8 (4.9)J) and bedside mats (25.1 (9.3)J) was 3.2- to 5.4-fold greater than the control condition (commercial carpet). While footfall deflections were not significantly different between safety floors (1.8 (0.7)mm) and the control carpet (3.7 (0.6)mm), they were significantly higher for two bedside mats. Finally, all of the safety floors, and two bedside mats, displayed 3-10 times the energy-absorption-to-deflection ratios observed for the baseline carpet. Overall, these results suggest that the safety floors we tested effectively addressed two competing demands required to reduce fall-related injury risk; namely the ability to absorb substantial impact energy without increasing footfall deflections. This study contributes to the literature suggesting that safety floors are a promising intervention for reducing fall-related injury risk in older adults.
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 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 it