Design and Implement an Elastically Suspended Back Frame for Reducing the Burden of Carrier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work has proved that carrying an elastically suspended load can improve the biomechanics of human body and reduce the burden of human body compared with carrying a rigid load. However, how to design and implement an effective elastically suspended load has been less researched. In this paper, we firstly analyze the relationship between the elastic load force acting on the human body and the parameters (stiffness and damping) of the elastic system to guide the design. Then, our prototype which is an effective elastically suspended back frame and can bind loads of various shapes is realized. The mass of the whole prototype is 2.66 kg. Experiments were carried to test the effect of the system. Results show that an elastically suspended back frame with a load of 25.3 kg could reduce the amplitude of load by 30.2%, reduce maximal load force acting on the carrier by 16.6% compared with the rigid load with backpack. Compared with carrying the rigid load with backpack, the mechanical work is reduced by 56.5% and the maximal mechanical power is also reduced by 66.1%.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".