Investigating the Relationship between Coupling Forces and Hand-Transmitted Vibration under Varying Excitation Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the vibration total value of the acceleration transmitted to the wrist and elbow was measured in the laboratory with a group of 13 male subjects holding a cylindrical handle while modifying the coupling force under varying levels of vibration. The results were used to establish the relationship between hand-transmitted vibration and coupling forces and to compare with the relations proposed as part of an ISO Technical Specification, ISO/TS 15230-2. This was done to determine the suitability of the proposed relationships when variations are introduced on the level of vibration on the handle. While tracing back the origins of the relations proposed in ISO/TS 15230-2, this paper further brings in evidence of the importance of considering the role of coupling forces when evaluating the exposure to hand-transmitted vibration and provides additional evidence to support the relationships which are proposed as part of the ISO Technical Specification. Irrespective of the level of broadband random vibration excitation considered, the agreement with these relationships was found to be best when setting the reference coupling force at 50, 75, 100 and 125 N and whenever the coupling forces applied on the handle were maintained below 150 N.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".