MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200268031 · doi:10.3390/vibration4040041

Effect of the Shoe Sole on the Vibration Transmitted from the Supporting Surface to the Feet

2021· article· en· W3200268031 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueVibration · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Vibration on Health
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
FundersRegione Lombardia
KeywordsTransmissibility (structural dynamics)VibrationHeelFoot (prosody)Structural engineeringAcousticsEnvironmental scienceEngineeringVibration isolationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it