MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W40997720 · doi:10.3233/oer-2006-6101

Biomechanical assessment of massage therapists

2006· article· en· W40997720 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

VenueOccupational Ergonomics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMassagePhysical therapyMedicineTrunkPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was undertaken to investigate the biomechanical demands on the low back of Massage Therapists performing typical massage therapy techniques and the nature of the associated cumulative exposure. Ten Massage Therapists performed a standardized relaxation back massage that incorporated a series of basic massage therapy techniques used in standard treatments. The 44-minute massage treatment was videotaped and a posture-matching approach was used to determine 3D peak and cumulative loads on the low back. Although the resultant peak low back loads would be considered safe in relation to current published compression and shear guidelines, the cumulative loading values were well within the ranges considered disconcerting in other health care and industrial workers. The therapists were found to assume non-neutral trunk, neck and arm postures for a significant portion of the massage, which could place these professionals at risk of cumulative musculoskeletal disorders.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.302 · 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