Recommended Maximum Holding Time of Common Static Sitting Postures of Office Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: A posture maintained for a prolonged period can be harmful to the health of office workers. This study aimed to estimate the recommended ergonomic duration for maintaining different sitting postures. Materials and Methods: Forty healthy male and female students participated in this experiment designed to measure perceived discomforts caused by the maintained common static sitting postures of office workers in a simple ergonomic set up for 4 minutes. The Borg CR10 scale was given to the participants to assess the discomfort in different body parts, before and after each experiment. Based on the mean group discomfort level of 2, the recommended holding time of each posture was estimated. Results: The recommended holding time and its discomfort score for each studied posture was tabulated. The moderate neck flexion had the highest score of discomfort among different neck postures with recommended MHT of 1.61 minutes. The lowest discomfort score was obtained for neutral neck posture (recommended MHT = 2.37 min). The moderate forward trunk inclination (30°) showed the highest discomfort score with MHT of 1.78 minutes among different trunk postures. The lowest discomfort score was obtained for the backward trunk position (back supported) with recommended MHT of 5.92 minutes. Among the most common knee postures, while working at the workstation, the lowest discomfort score was obtained for the knee flexed about 90 degrees, with the recommended MHT of 5 minutes. The lower limbs position with crossing one leg over the other (leg crossing) received the highest discomfort score (recommended MHT = 1.88 min). Conclusions: The recommended holding time in this study may help assess the risk of MSDs in office work and training proper sitting behavior to individuals involved in office tasks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".