MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234214674 · doi:10.1002/hfm.20153

An electromyographic investigation of asymmetric lifting and moving of a load: I. Effects of load lift from floor to target shelves

2009· article· en· W4234214674 on OpenAlexaff
Biman Das, Godfrey Mabaleka

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnuckleElectromyographySternumLift (data mining)AsymmetryAnatomyMathematicsMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The range of normalized electromyography (EMG) values when lifting and moving a 5.84 kg box was between 0.12 and 0.77. The right iliocostalis and the right and the left external obliques showed significant increases in muscle activity at 90° of asymmetry. The average percentage increase for the stated muscles was 62.3% when compared to muscle activity at 0°. The left external oblique also responded significantly at 60° of asymmetry when compared to 0°. The knuckle, sternum, and reach heights significantly affected the left iliocostalis and the left and right erector spinae muscles. The average percentage increases in the stated muscles were 74.4% at knuckle height, 126.1% at sternum height, and 143.3% at reach height, when compared to floor level. Significant increases in muscle activity for the right iliocostalis and the right external oblique were registered only at the sternum and at the reach heights. For manual materials handling (MMH), an endeavor should be made to avoid asymmetric lifting and moving at 90° and from the floor level and to the reach height. To minimize the risk of back injury, the MMH task should be performed preferably within an asymmetry of 30° but not exceeding 60° asymmetry. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service IndustriesSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207