Optimising Posture: An Experimental Study of Posture Support for Comfort among University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Long periods of sitting contribute to musculoskeletal disorders (MSD), which can lead to occupational injuries.Introducing posture support is one of the strategies targeted at alleviating discomfort caused by prolonged sitting.The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of posture support in improving muscle comfort during prolonged sitting among university students.Methods: An experimental study was conducted with 32 participants, evenly divided into control and experimental groups of 16 each.The experimental group received posture support during the two-hour simulation, but the control group did not.The Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire and Visual Analogue Scale were used to assess the subjects' level of discomfort every 15 minutes.Results: The control group's mean discomfort ratings for several body areas, including the neck, shoulders, arms and hands, upper back, lower back, buttocks, thighs, knees, feet, and ankles, were substantially higher than the experimental group's (p<0.05).Conclusion: Posture support effectively alleviates discomfort in students' sitting posture, as indicated by the experimental group's reduced discomfort.To better understand this phenomenon, future research should include larger sample sizes, longer study periods, and real settings in university's lecture hall.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".