Comparing the Whole Body Vibration Exposures across Three Truck Seats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whole-body vibration (WBV) is associated with several adverse health and safety outcomes including low-back pain (LBP) and driver fatigue. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of three commercially-available air-suspension truck seats for reducing truck drivers’ exposures to WBV. Seventeen truck drivers operating over a standardized route were recruited for this study and three commercially-available air suspension seats were evaluated. The predominant, z-axis average weighted vibration (Aw) and Vibration Dose Values (VDV) were calculated and normalized to represent eight hours of truck operation. In addition, the Seat Effective Amplitude Transmissibility (SEAT), the ratio of the seat-measured vibration divided by the floor-measured vibration, was compared across the three seats. One seat had significantly higher on-road WBV exposures whereas there were no differences across seats in off-road WBV exposures. The SEAT values, calculated over the whole route (which was predominantly on-road) indicated that one seat reduced WBV exposure by 9% on average and the other two seats had nearly double the attenuation performance based on A(8) exposures. The performance differences across seats may have important practical implications for truck procurement and overall truck driver health. The higher performing seats nearly doubled the amount of time drivers could operate their trucks before reaching the daily vibration action limits recommended by the International Organization for Standardization. Seat suspension-based design differences are thought to account for the performance differences.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".