The Effect of Wave Motion Intensities on Performance in a Simulated Search and Rescue Task and the Concurrent Demands of Maintaining Balance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to examine how intensity of wave motions affects the performance of a simulated maritime search and rescue (SAR) task.BackgroundMaritime SAR is a critical maritime occupation; however, the effect of wave motion intensity on worker performance is unknown.MethodsTwenty-four participants (12 male, 12 female) performed a simulated search and rescue task on a six-degree-of-freedom motion platform in two conditions that differed in motion intensity (low and high). Task performance, electromyography (EMG), and number of compensatory steps taken by the individual were examined.ResultsAs magnitude of simulated motion increased, performance in the SAR task decreased, and was accompanied by increases in lower limb muscle activation and number of steps taken.ConclusionsPerformance of an SAR task and balance control may be impeded by high-magnitude vessel motions.ApplicationThis research has the potential to be used by maritime engineers, occupational health and safety professionals, and ergonomists to improve worker safety and performance for SAR operators.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".