MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564404794

Vibration time and rest time during sinusoidal vibration experiments: do these factors affect comfort ratings?

2006· article· en· W2564404794 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James P. Dickey, Michele Oliver, Natasha K. Lee Shee, Paul-Émile Boileau, Tammy Eger, Lana M. Trick

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Vibration on Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRest (music)VibrationAffect (linguistics)AcousticsWhole body vibrationStructural engineeringPsychologyEngineeringPhysicsCommunication
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Industrial exposure to whole-body vibration is associated with injury and discomfort. Certain industries, notably mining, construction, and forestry, involve complex 6 degrees of freedom vibration. Laboratory-based studies of vibration are essential for controlled and systematic evaluation of the human responses to vibration2. The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate whether the duration of the vibration exposure, and rest between vibrations, significantly influence the subjective ratings of comfort during laboratory-based studies of vibration. Methods Subjects: The cumulative vibration dose was calculated, and was below the health guidance caution zone recommended by International standards3. The experimental procedures were approved by the University of Guelph Research Ethics Board. Ten adult subjects participated in this pilot experiment. All subjects completed the entire experimental paradigm; no subjects complained of pain during or after the experiment. Experimental Design: The experiment consisted of four blocks of vibration exposures; either 15 or 20 seconds of vibration (1 df:Z axis, 3 df:XY plane, 3df:YZ plane, or 6 df) alternating with either 5 or 10 seconds rest. The order of presentation of the four blocks was randomized. Each of the blocks was composed of 37 individual sinusoidal vibration exposures in randomized sequence. This abstract focused on ten identical trials, (6.3 Hz vertical vibration, 0.55 m/s2 RMS) interspersed within each block, in order to assess whether the subjects’ comfort ratings systematically varied between the 15 or 20 vibration exposures, the 5 or 10 second rest between vibrations, or within each block. The experiment involved 43 minutes of vibration within the 62 minute experiment. Vibration Apparatus: A commercial parallel robotic platform was used to apply the specific vibration exposures (R2000, Parallel Robotics Systems Corporation, Hampton, New Hampshire). The subjects sat on a passenger seat from a 1992 Honda Accord that was rigidly mounted to the robotic platform (Figure 1). This robotic system performed the specific vibration exposures operating under closed-loop displacement control. A custom-written Matlab program automated the testing sequence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEffects of Vibration on HealthFrench-language works237,207