Difference between male and female workers lifting the same relative load when palletizing boxes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A few biomechanical studies have contrasted the work techniques of female and male workers during manual material handling (MMH). A recent study showed that female workers differed from males mostly in the strategy they used to lift 15-kg boxes from the ground, especially regarding task duration, knee and back postures and interjoint coordination. However, the lifting technique difference observed in females compared to males was perhaps due to a strength differences. The objective of this study was to test whether female workers would repeat the same lifting technique with a load adjusted to their overall strength (females: 10 kg; males: 15 kg), which can be considered a "relative load" since the overall back strength of females is 2/3 that of males. The task for the participants consisted in transferring boxes from one pallet to another. A dynamic 3D linked segment model was used to estimate the net moments at L5/S1, and different kinematic variables were considered. The results showed that the biomechanics of the lifting techniques used by males and females were similar in terms of task duration and cumulative loading, but different in terms of interjoint coordination pattern. The sequential interjoint coordination pattern previously seen in females with an absolute load (15 kg) was still present with the relative load, suggesting the influence of factors more intrinsically linked to sex. Considering that the female coordination pattern likely stretched posterior passive tissues when lifting boxes from the ground, potentially leading to higher risk of injury, the reason for this sex effect must be identified so that preventive interventions can be proposed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".