Different sit:stand time ratios within a 30-minute cycle change perceptions related to musculoskeletal disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regular standing interruptions to sedentary work are recommended, but their dosage is understudied. To measure perception variations associated with different sit:stand ratios, 16 people used six ratios (30:0, 27:3, 24:6, 21:9, 18:12 and 15:15) within 30-min cycles in their normal office environment. At start and end of each workday, study participants recorded their perception of 11 factors on a 10-point scale. Musculoskeletal discomfort in 10 body regions was measured before and after exposure to sit-stand ratios. Overall preferred ratios were recorded. Sit:stand ratio affected all perceived factors, with impact varying. Standing at least 6 min improved results most overall; however, individual perceived factors were least impacted by any of 30:0, 27:3, 24:6 or 21:9. Preferred sit:stand ratios were 15:15, 18:12 and 21:9. Typically, least liked ratios involved briefest standing (30:0, 27:3, 24:6) although two participants least liked 15:15. Understanding these variations contributes to appropriate standing dosage recommendations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".