Investigation of office workers’ sitting behaviors in an ergonomically adjusted workstation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. Common ergonomic office workstations are designed for a few optimum postures. Nonetheless, sitting is a dynamic activity and the ideal sitting posture is rarely maintained in practice. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the sitting behavior of office workers in an actual working environment using ergonomically adjusted workstations to examine whether they promote maintaining appropriate sitting postures. Methods. Sitting behaviors (frequency of postures and position changes in different body parts) were explored among 26 office workers during a 60-min sitting duration, using the posture recording and classification method developed by Graf et al. The rapid upper limb assessment (RULA) method was also used to assess postural load. Then, the results of the RULA method were compared with the results from investigating the sitting behavior of office workers. Results. Common ergonomic workstations were effective in eliminating some awkward postures. However, some important risk factors such as holding postures with an inappropriate lumbar spine curve (86% of the observations) and maintaining a posture for a long time (for 7–12 min) were observed in the participants’ sitting behaviors, while they were neglected in the RULA method. Conclusions. The common ergonomic workstations could not guarantee the users’ appropriate sitting behaviors.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".