The effects of prolonged standing in occupational footwear on perceived discomfort, standing balance, and gait biomechanics in young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While occupational footwear (OF) are designed to protect workers from acute injury, it is unclear whether OF affects worker function in otherwise innocuous tasks (i.e., standing and walking). Twenty individuals attended two sessions, wearing athletic footwear (AF) in one and OF in the other. Perceived discomfort, standing balance and gait parameters were measured before and after a 2-h prolonged standing protocol. Compared to AF, foot discomfort was 46 ± 4% greater (p = 0.020) after prolonged standing in OF. Standing balance was also differentially affected between footwear, with medio-lateral sway frequency increasing by 2 ± 3% when wearing OF (p = 0.020) but not in AF. Prolonged standing altered some gait parameters (e.g. increased stance duration, reduced propulsive force, etc.), but all changes were independent of footwear. Therefore, wearing OF is unlikely to cause any substantial changes in standing balance or gait that increases the risk of overuse workplace injury.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".