The biomechanical characteristics and physiological cost of three standardized pulling tasks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the biomechanical characteristics and physiological cost of three standardized pulling tasks. 12 female and 17 male subjects participated in the study. The subjects were instructed to pull a load at three different heights (hip, shoulder, eye – anatomical landmarks defined the end of a pull) at a rate of ten pulls per minute, for a period of ten minutes (one hundred total pulls). The pulls were sub-maximal and chosen to represent a task during a typical 8 hour workday. Statistics: ANOVA statistical analyses with Bonferroni pairwise comparisons were performed to determine significance. Results: Statistical significance was obtained for energy expenditure (Ė), sagittal displacement and twisting velocity. Hip pulling Ė was lower than shoulder pulling Ė (p=0.046) and eye pulling Ė (p=0.002) by 7% and 11%, respectively. Hip pulling involves less sagittal displacement than shoulder (p=0.004) and eye (p=0.001) by 37% and 46%, respectively. Finally, twisting velocity at hip (p=0.042) and shoulder (p=0.006) pulling were 30% and 36% higher than twisting velocity at eye pulling. Conclusion: Physiological data combined with biomechanical data provide a comprehensive description of the demands associated with this standardized pulling task. This combined information assists in risk factor identification and intervention design for tasks involving repetitive upper limb movements.
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.
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 it