Comparison Considerations Toward Investigating the Factors of Load and Age Group on the Maximum Reach Envelope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objectives were to compare cylindrical and spherical coordinate representations of the maximum reach envelope (MRE) and apply these to a comparison of age and load on the MRE. BACKGROUND: The MRE is a useful measurement in the design of workstations and quantifying functional capability of the upper body. As a dynamic measure, there are human factors that impact the size, shape, and boundaries of the MRE. METHOD: Three-dimensional reach measures were recorded using a computerized potentiometric system for anthropometric measures (CPSAM) on two adult groups (aged 18-25 years and 35-70 years). Reach trials were performed holding .0, .5, and 1 kg. RESULTS: θ, ϕ) coordinates. Median reach distance vectors were calculated for 54 panels within the MRE as created by incremented banding of the respective coordinate systems. Reach distance and reach area were compared between the two groups and the loaded conditions using a spherical coordinate system. Both younger adults and unloaded condition produced greater reach distances and reach areas. CONCLUSIONS: Where a cylindrical coordinate system may reflect absolute reference for design, a normalized spherical coordinate system may better reflect functional range of motion and better compare individual and group differences. Age and load are both factors that impact the MRE. APPLICATION: These findings present measurement considerations for use in human reach investigation and 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 | 0.021 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".