Energy cost associated with moving platforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests motion induced fatigue contributes to significant performance degradation and is likely related to a higher incidence of accidents and injuries. However, the exact effect of continuous multidirectional platform perturbations on energy cost (EC) with experienced personnel on boats and other seafaring vessels remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this experiment was to measure the metabolic ECs associated with maintaining postural stability in a motion-rich environment. METHODS: Twenty volunteer participants, who were free of any musculoskeletal or balance disorders, performed three tasks while immersed in a moving environment that varied motion profiles similar to those experienced by workers on a mid-size commercial fishing vessel (static platform (baseline), low and high motions (HMs)). Cardiorespiratory parameters were collected using an indirect calorimetric system that continuously measured breath-by-breath samples. Heart rate was recoded using a wireless heart monitor. RESULTS: Results indicate a systematic increase in metabolic costs associated with increased platform motions. The increases were most pronounced during the standing and lifting activities and were 50% greater during the HM condition when compared to no motion. Increased heart rates were also observed. DISCUSSION: Platform motions have a significant impact on metabolic costs that are both task and magnitude of motion dependent. Practitioners must take into consideration the influence of motion-rich environments upon the systematic accumulation of operator fatigue.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".