Predicting preferred motorcycle riding postures to support human factors/ergonomic trade-off analyses within a multi-objective optimisation-based digital human model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital human models (DHM) can predict how users might interact with new vehicle geometry during early-stage design, an important precursor to conducting trade-off analyses. However, predicting human postures requires assumptions about which performance criteria best predict realistic postures. Focusing on the design of motorcycles, we do not know what performance criteria drive preferred riding postures. Addressing this gap, we aimed to identify which performance criteria and corresponding weightings best predicted preferred motorcycle riding postures when using a DHM. To address our aim, we surveyed the literature to find experimental data specifying joint angles that correspond to preferred riding postures. We then deployed a response surface methodology to determine which performance criteria and weightings optimally predicted the preferred riding postures when using a DHM. Weighting the minimisation of the discomfort performance criteria (an aggregate of joint range of motion, displacement from neutral and joint torque) best predicted preferred motorcycle riding postures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".