Back loading estimation during team handling: Is the use of only motion data sufficient?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analyzing back loading during team manual handling tasks requires the measurement of external contacts and is thus limited to standardized tasks. This paper evaluates the possibility of estimating L5/S1 joint moments based solely on motion data. Ten subjects constituted five two-person teams and handling tasks were analyzed with four different box configurations. Three prediction methods for estimating L5/S1 joint moments were evaluated by comparing them to a gold standard using force platforms: one used only motion data, another used motion data and the traction/compression force applied to the box and one used motion data and the ground reaction forces of one team member. The three prediction methods were based on a contact model with an optimization-based method. Using only motion data did not allow an accurate estimate due to the traction/compression force applied by each team member, which affected L5/S1 joint moments. Back loading can be estimated using motion data and the measurement of the traction/compression force with relatively small errors, comparable to the uncertainty levels reported in other studies. The traction/compression force can be obtained directly with a force measurement unit built into the object to be moved or indirectly by using force platforms on which one of the two handlers stands during the handling task. The use of the proposed prediction methods allows team manual handling tasks to be analyzed in various realistic contexts, with team members who have different anthropometric measurements and with different box characteristics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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, 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".