MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471342040 · doi:10.3233/oer-160236

Study of the biodynamic response of the foot to vibration exposure

2016· article· en· W2471342040 on OpenAlexafffund
Katie Goggins, Alison Godwin, Céline Larivière, Tammy Eger

Bibliographic record

VenueOccupational Ergonomics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Vibration on Health
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
FundersWorkplace Safety and Insurance Board
KeywordsTransmissibility (structural dynamics)Medial malleolusLateral malleolusAnkleFirst metatarsalFoot (prosody)MalleolusMedicineAccelerometerOrthodonticsVibrationAnatomyAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOccupational ErgonomicsSame topicEffects of Vibration on HealthFrench-language works237,207