Study of the biodynamic response of the foot to vibration exposure
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
BACKGROUND: Exposure to foot-transmitted vibration (FTV) has been linked to injury; however, the biodynamic response of the foot to FTV has not been quantified. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to measure vibration transmissibility from the floor-to-ankle, and the floor-to-metatarsal, during exposure to FTV while standing, and to determine if FTV exposure frequency, or participant mass or arch index (AI) influence the transmission of FTV through the foot. METHODS: Participants' AI was measured. Four ADXL326, tri-axial accelerometers were utilized to measure vibration on the platform medial to distal head of first metatarsal, on the distal head of first metatarsal, on the platform paralleling the medial malleolus, and on the lateral malleolus. Participants were randomly exposed to FTV at 25 Hz, 30 Hz, 35 Hz, 40 Hz, 45 Hz, and 50 Hz for 45 seconds. RESULTS: Neither the three-way interaction of location*frequency*AI [ = 0.816, F(5,24) = 1.080, p = 0.396] or location*frequency*mass [ = 0.959, F(5,24) = 0.203, p = 0.958] were significant (p < 0.05). The location*frequency interaction was significant [ = 0.246, F(5,25) = 15.365, p = 0.0001]. Differences in mean transmissibility between the ankle and metatarsal were significant at 40 Hz, 45 Hz, and 50 Hz (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The greatest transmissibility magnitude measured at the metatarsal and ankle occurred at 50 Hz and 25-30 Hz respectively, suggesting the formation of a local resonance at each location.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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