Effects of an Active and a Passive Work Condition on Musculoskeletal Discomfort and Computer Typing Performance for Computer-Based Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of research suggests that excessive chair-seated work is negatively associated with health and wellbeing of office workers. Replacing chair-seated work with “active rest” postures may offer beneficial health and productivity outcomes. Therefore, this pilot study compared musculoskeletal-discomfort (MSD) and computer-typing performance between an active (20-min floor-seated work followed by 10-min of standing work) and a passive (30-min of chair-seated work) condition in an office-like laboratory environment. Using a repeated measures experimental design twelve participants performed computer-typing tasks for 60 minutes each in the active and passive work conditions. Results indicate that change in MSD was significantly lower in the active work condition compared to passive work condition; there was no significant difference in computer-typing performance between work conditions. Findings suggest that replacing chair-seated work with a combination of floor-seated and standing work can attenuate MSD without negatively impacting computer-typing performance.
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".