Biomechanical comparisons considering risk to the lumbar spine: walking with no load, a backpack, and a person on the back
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participants were twelve 70+ kg male strength-trained athletes and one passenger child with a mass of 29 kg. The male participants walked three times over a force plate embedded in an eight metre walkway for each of three conditions: carrying no load, a 29 kg backpack, or a 29 kg passenger. Variables were compared using a repeated measures ANOVA test with a Bonferroni correction. Both load conditions produced compensatory trunk flexion; trunk flexion increased from no load to piggybacking to backpacking. Trunk range of motion was similar for no load and piggybacking, but increased to backpacking. The backpack load caused greater resultant and total magnitude of torque than the passenger load. The trunk extensors dominated with no load and piggybacking and the trunk flexors dominated with backpacking. Many of the significant differences between conditions suggest that piggybacking is biomechanically more similar to natural gait than is backpacking.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".