MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249643679 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14664528

Analysis of neck muscle activity and comparison of head and body motion during rotational movement in a motion simulator

2021· preprint· en· W4249643679 on OpenAlexaff
Shahini Sirikantharajah

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeck musclesMotion (physics)Head and neckPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSimulationMovement (music)Computer sciencePhysicsComputer visionAnatomyMedicineAcousticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most of the research relating to neck injuries performed to date has been tested in environments with linear motions. Disabled individuals tend to experience jerky neck rotations during falls, bed transfers, and while travelling in wheelchairs. This thesis, using various signal processing techniques, studied how healthy neck muscles, the head and body react to jerky rotational motion. Electromyogram (EMG) and motion data were gathered from 20 subjects as they were rotated 45 degrees in the forward and backward pitch plane, with and without visual input, in a motion simulator. Results showed that neck muscle behaviour was affected by the direction of motion and visual input. Maximum effective muscle power of 10.54% was reached, relative to maximum voluntary contractions (MVC). The factors found to influence neck muscle responses, such as head weight and visual input should be taken into consideration when designing headrests, neck braces and planning any rehabilitation programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207