The influence of occupational footwear on slip responses
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated how walking in occupational footwear (OF) affects slip outcome and slip recovery strategies in response to an unexpected slip. Participants walked along a walkway while either barefoot (BF; n = 13) or in OF (n = 12). The first five walking trials consisted of the no-slip condition, where a high friction sheet was placed halfway down the walkway to ensure a low probability of a slip. Prior to the sixth walking trial and without the participant’s knowledge, the sheet was replaced with a low friction surface to induce an unexpected slip. Results obtained during the no-slip trials indicated that compared to the BF group, the OF group walked with a 15% smaller required coefficient of friction (p = 0.04), a 12° greater dorsiflexion at heel strike (p = 0.007) and a 7° more extended knee position at 100 ms following heel strike (p = 0.008). The OF group also demonstrated greater electromyographic (EMG) activity in the hamstrings of the stance limb and the gastrocnemius of the contralateral limb prior to and after heel strike. When the low friction surface was unexpectedly encountered, a slip was induced in both groups. But compared to the BF group, the OF group experienced a less severe slip, with the slip being 42% shorter (p = 0.004) and 75% slower (p < 0.001), and exhibited a 19–71% lesser EMG activation when responding to the slip. Although these results provide initial evidence for the benefits of wearing OF to minimise the consequence of a slip in the workplace, further research is needed to determine whether the altered walking patterns associated with wearing OF (e.g., greater dorsiflexion, reduced knee range of motion, etc.) may have contributed to the decrease in slip severity.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it