The Ergonomic Design of Bent-Handled Wok for Female Cooks’ Wok Flipping Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional straight-handled woks and the ergonomic bent-handled woks under different wok sizes were evaluated using the psychophysical approach. Twelve female subjects were tested using 15 different woks in a random order. The independent variables were the wok handle angle (with two angles of 25˚, 10˚ for traditional wok, and three angles of -5˚, -20˚ and -35˚ for bent-handled wok) and the wok size (with three diameters of 33 cm, 36 cm and 39 cm). The criterion measures included maximum acceptable weight of flipping (MAWF), wrist angle and subjective rating. The results showed both the handle angle and wok size significantly affected the maximum acceptable weight of flipping, wrist angle and subjective rating. The bent-handled wok is superior to the straight-handled wok, and the size-weight illusion effect is significant. In general, a small wok (33 cm diameter) with an ergonomic bent handle (-35˚) is ideal for females to decrease the risk of upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders when performing the flipping task.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".