The need to accommodate monitor height changes between sitting and standing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, the rate at which sit-to-stand workstations are being introduced into the workplace has seen a dramatic increase. Aside from adjusting the height of the desk when transitioning from sitting to standing, there is a lack of literature regarding the necessary adjustments to other equipment associated with the workstation. To better understand some of these limitations, 16 participants stood and sat at a sit-to-stand workstation while adhering to current Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Guidelines for Office Ergonomics. Transitioning between sitting and standing while adhering to CSA guidelines resulted in a 3.9 cm difference in monitor height relative to work surface between sitting and standing. Results from this investigation support the notion that monitor height adjustments relative to the work surface are necessary when utilising sit-to-stand workstations – with the implementation to practice message being that both sitting and standing configurations need to be assessed and accommodated in the workstation configuration. Practitioner summary: Limited guidelines exist in the necessary adjustments to equipment associated with sit-to-stand workstations. Transitioning between sitting and standing resulted in a 3.9 cm difference in monitor height relative to work surface between sitting and standing. This supports that monitor height adjustments relative to the workstation are necessary when using sit-to-stand workstations.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".