Case Studies on the Body Postures and Technical Design of Small Angle Grinders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our case studies refer to small angle grinders. Work tasks, physical stresses during use, and stresses on the hand-arm system are discussed. For this purpose, a survey was administered to 42 work persons from four different industries. Angle grinders were the most important hand tools for the respondents. They used angle grinders for eight activities (from flexing to polishing). In addition, 17 detailed video analyses of the work processes with 5 different angle grinder makes were carried out in selected workshops. The survey results on working postures in the last week as well as within the last year indicated mainly bent and twisted trunk postures, squatting and kneeling at work. To that extent, these results correspond with the OWAS studies by Ellegast R, et al. The video studies pointed out the very frequent twisted or bent hand-arm postures. The (ergonomically recommended) alignment of tool axis and hand-arm axis is not possible when using angle grinders. Nevertheless, the vast majority of our test subjects are satisfied with the dimensions and characteristics of small angle grinders. The analysis results are transferred into a list of ergonomic requirements for product designers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".