Modelling endurance and resumption times for repetitive one-hand pushing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study's objective was to develop models of endurance time (ET), as a function of load level (LL), and of resumption time (RT) after loading as a function of both LL and loading time (LT) for repeated loadings. Ten male participants with experience in construction work each performed 15 different one-handed repetaed pushing tasks at shoulder height with varied exerted force and duration. These data were used to create regression models predicting ET and RT. It is concluded that power law relationships are most appropriate to use when modelling ET and RT. While the data the equations are based on are limited regarding number of participants, gender, postures, magnitude and type of exerted force, the paper suggests how this kind of modelling can be used in job design and in further research. Practitioner Summary: Adequate muscular recovery during work-shifts is important to create sustainable jobs. This paper describes mathematical modelling and presents models for endurance times and resumption times (an aspect of recovery need), based on data from an empirical study. The models can be used to help manage fatigue levels in job design.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".