An Assessment of Back and Shoulder Postures in Single-Handed Exertions: Expanding Ergonomic Reaching Guidelines to Consider Lumbar Spine Axial Twist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occupational applicationsAcross a series of standing single-handed exertions performed at different lateral angles, distances, heights, and loads, lumbar axial twist exceeded an angular threshold of 9° in select exertions. Specifically, 9° of rightward axial twist was exceeded for all exertions performed laterally (90° from the body midline). Additionally, for those at the body midline, 9° of leftward axial twist was exceeded for upward exertions and exertions performed at far distances (tertiary reach envelope). Further, the data supports that for many exertions, lumbar flexion–extension and shoulder elevation would be unlikely to increase the potential for injury as angles remained within the in vivo lumbar neutral zone and were not considered overhead. Given the relationship between lateral hand exertions and lumbar axial twist, it is generally recommended that standing single-handed exertions not be performed beyond 60° from the midline. In addition to the current recommendations related to reach distance, future ergonomic reach envelope guidelines could benefit from incorporating recommendations on reach angle from the body midline.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".