Evaluation and Analysis of Whole-Body Vibration Exposure during Soil Tillage Operation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated whole-body vibration (WBV) response in real field harrowing operations at different tractor ride conditions i.e., average speed, front harrow pin angle (FHPA), and rear harrow pin distance (RHPD). Taguchi’s L27 orthogonal array was used to formulate a systematic design of experiments. WBV exposure was measured along the three translational axes to compute overall daily vibration magnitude i.e., A(8). Tractor’s seat isolation capacity was assessed in terms of Seat Effective Amplitude Transmissibility i.e., SEAT%. Raw acceleration data was analysed to obtain dominant frequencies using Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). A(8) was found to range between 0.43 to 0.87 m/s2 in the experimental trials. Seat isolation capacity was found to be poor in 89% of the experiments i.e., SEAT% > 100%. Average speed and FHPA was found to have a significant impact (p ≤ 0.05) on A(8) and SEAT%. FFT response showed a range of primary and secondary dominant peaks within a frequency range of 0.2 to 11 Hz. In conclusion, the majority of experimental trials (67%) exceeded the Directive2002/44EU recommended exposure action value (EAV) limit i.e., 0.5 m/s2. The harrowing operation was found to exhibit vibration exposure at low frequencies in the vicinity of natural frequencies of the human body and may consequently affect ride comfort.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".