Effect of the reach distance on the execution of one-handed submaximal pull forces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effects of reach distance on the lumbar spine kinematics and electromyographical activities (EMG) of eight selected muscles of the trunk and shoulder during submaximal horizontal pulling exertions (12% of lean body mass) all located at elbow height. Eleven healthy male volunteer subjects were asked to pull on a load located at varying distances (10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40% of subject stature) from the frontal plane containing the load handle. Trunk kinematics in the sagittal plane, as monitored by a Lumbar Motion Monitor, increased significantly as reach distance increased. EMG data revealed increasing erector spinae activity as reach distance increased and this muscle group was found to be co-active with external oblique muscles during the exertion. Shoulder complex muscles were found to be highly active in all conditions, but only the trapezius and deltoid demonstrated significantly decreasing activity as pull reach increased. These data provide some direction in positioning the operator within a workstation demanding pull force exertions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".