MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2584597415 · doi:10.7451/cbe.2016.58.2.1

Comparison of forward-facing and backward-facing tractor egress

2017· article· en· W2584597415 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Biosystems Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTractorAeronauticsBusinessEnvironmental scienceAgricultural engineeringComputer scienceAutomotive engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Falls and near-falls from tractors during ingress and egress are a health hazard that researchers should work to prevent. To gain an understanding of the factors contributing to such falls, a pilot study was completed in which kinematic analysis of tractor egress was performed using three individuals whose heights represent 5th, 50th and 95th population percentiles, respectively. The three participants were instructed to ingress and egress from the tractor. They always faced toward the tractor during ingress, however, egress involved two positions: facing toward the tractor (i.e., climbing down as one climbs down a ladder; hereafter referred to as backward facing egress or BFE) and facing away from the tractor (i.e., stepping down as one walks down a staircase; hereafter referred to as forward facing egress or FFE). Each participant completed three BFE replicates and three FFE replicates on each of the five tractors selected for this pilot study, yielding a total of 90 ingress/egress measurements. The participants’ movements were recorded with two digital video cameras to capture motion in two perpendicular planes. Kinovea motion analysis software was used to complete kinematic analysis. The observed time of descent was greater for BFE than FFE with many of the differences statistically significant at the 5% level. On average, BFE required approximately 1.4 times longer than FFE. Three-point contact was maintained 56% of the time during FFE and 68% of the time during BFE, with this difference significant at the 5% level. Maximum values for excursion of the knee joint ranged from 73 to 131° for FFE and from 44 to 111° for BFE. Although statistical analysis could not be completed because knee flexion was not visible for every step, the data suggest that the activity of FFE requires greater excursion of the knee joint than does the activity of BFE. Jumps from the bottom step to the ground were observed in 3 instances for BFE (7% of BFE trials) and in 26 instances for FFE (58% of FFE trials). Overall, it has been confirmed that kinematic analysis is able to detect differences between forward facing egress (FFE) and backward facing egress (BFE). The experimental evidence suggests that BFE is safer behaviour than FFE.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.263 · 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