Redefining Ergonomic Design: Human-Centered Anthropometric Modeling for Tractor Cab Optimization.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on enhancing the ergonomic design of tractor cabs using advanced anthropometric modeling tools and a Human-Centered Design (HCD) approach. As the agricultural industry increasingly shifts towards autonomous machinery, operators' roles are evolving from active engagement to more passive oversight. This transition necessitates rethinking cab designs to prioritize operator comfort, safety, and usability. This study investigates the Active Range of Motion (AROM) for various joints (the buttocks, back, shoulders, neck, left leg, right leg, left arm, and right arm) and categorizes these into three zones: comfortable, acceptable, and unsatisfactory. Using RAMSIS software, digital twins of operators were analyzed to assess joint movement and visual field classifications. The findings provide actionable insights for positioning controls and displays within optimal comfort zones and visual cones, ensuring ergonomic efficiency. This study highlights gender-based differences in AROM and validates the symmetrical nature of joint movements across body sides. By employing these findings, designers can develop tractor cabs that meet functional demands and enhance user well-being, safety, and productivity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".