Effect of the Shoe Sole on the Vibration Transmitted from the Supporting Surface to the Feet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vibration transmitted through the foot can lead to vibration white feet, resulting in blanching of the toes and the disruption of blood circulation. Controlled studies identifying industrial boot characteristics effective at attenuating vibration exposure are lacking. This work focused on the evaluation of vibration transmissibility of boot midsole materials and insoles across the range 10–200 Hz at different foot locations. Questionnaires were used to evaluate the comfort of each material. The materials were less effective at attenuating vibration transmitted to the toe region of the foot than the heel. Between 10 and 20 Hz, all midsole materials reduced the average vibration transmitted to the foot. The average transmissibility at the toes above 100 Hz was larger than 1, evidencing that none of the tested material protects the worker from vibration-related risks. There was a poor correlation between the vibration transmissibility and the subjective evaluation of comfort. Future research is needed to identify materials effective for protecting both the toe and the heel regions of the foot. Specific standards for shoe testing are required as well.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".