Effects of implementing an active sitting protocol compared to using a traditional office chair and standing workstation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the maximal biomechanical and physiological effects of implementing an active sitting protocol while using an active chair, compared to the use of a traditional office chair, and standing workstation. The active chair had a seat pan split longitudinally, enabling the participant to pedal their feet while seated. The active sitting protocol consisted of participants actively plantarflexing and dorsiflexing their ankles in a “stepping” motion to the sound of a metronome, operating at 40 beats per minute. Twenty-four healthy participants performed computer tasks at each of the workstations for 30-min. For each collection period, participants’ biomechanical and physiological responses were recorded using electromyography (EMG); near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS); pressure distribution mats; electrodermal activity (EDA); heart rate (HR) monitor; and subjective discomfort survey. Statistical analysis was conducted using a repeated measures analysis of variance, with a Tukey correction post-hoc analysis for significant findings. There were few significant findings in our biomechanical measures that separated the active chair from the traditional office chair and the standing workstation. However, this study demonstrated that the active sitting protocol had positive physiological effects for the user, with the greatest benefit being the significant increase in blood oxygenation levels to the gastrocnemius.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".