Standing centre of pressure alters the vibration transmissibility response of the foot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vibration-white foot as an occupational disease has underscored the need to better understand the vibration response of the foot. While vibration transmissibility data exist for a natural standing position, it is anticipated that weight distribution will affect the response. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of changes in centre of pressure (COP) on the foot’s biomechanical response. Twenty-one participants were exposed to vertical vibration of 30 mm/s, with a sine sweep from 10–200 Hz. <i>Z</i>-axis (vertical) vibration was measured at 24 locations on the right foot, with the COP shifted forward or toward the heel. A mixed model analysis at each location revealed significant differences (<i>p</i> <b>Practitioner Summary</b>: Altering the centre of pressure location resulted in changes in the transmission of vibration through the foot. The forward lean position was associated with the greatest amplitude of vibration transmissibility at the toes. This information is relevant for clinicians studying vibration-induced white-foot and engineers designing protective equipment.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.036 | 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".