Influence of Spine-Focused Verbal Instruction on Spine Flexion During Lifting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lifting with a flexed spine, especially near the end range of motion, has been identified as a potential risk factor for low back injury/pain. Therefore, individuals who develop discomfort from repetitive, prolonged and/or loaded flexed or slouched postures may benefit from a greater awareness of how to control and/or modify their spinal posture to avoid irritating their backs in these situations. This study was therefore designed to test the ability of spine-oriented verbal instructions to reduce intersegmental spine flexion during three lifting tasks. The lifts were first performed without any instructions on lifting technique. An audio recording was then played with instructions to limit bending in the lower back before repeating the lifts. Following the verbal instructions, maximum spine flexion angles significantly (p < 0.05) decreased at intersegmental levels in the lower thoracic and upper lumbar (T8/T9 to L2/L3) regions, but no significant changes were observed at the lower lumbar levels (L3/L4 to L5/S1). Thus, it is concluded that spine-oriented verbal instructions can decrease spine flexion during lifting; however, other cues/instructions may be required to target lower lumbar levels which have been identified as the most prone to injury/pain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".