A week-long field study of seated pelvis and lumbar spine kinematics during office work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study objective was to quantify "natural" seated pelvis and lumbar spine kinematics over multiple days of work at individuals' workstations. Twenty participants completed five days of their usual office work while seated time was characterized from a thigh-worn activity monitor. Seated pelvic tilt and lumbar spine flexion-extension were measured from tri-axial accelerometers. Seated time accounted for approximately 90% of participants' workdays. Sitting was characterized by posterior pelvic tilt and lumbar flexion (43-79% of maximum flexion) with an average of 9 shifts and 13 fidgets every 15 min. No significant differences emerged by sex or between days indicating that a single representative day can capture baseline sitting responses in the field. Average field kinematics tended to agree with the laboratory-collected kinematics, but postural variability was larger in the field. These kinematic values could be useful for designing interventions aimed at reducing spine flexion and increasing spine movement in occupational sitting.
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) | 0.000 | 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".