Lack of gender difference in motion sickness induced by vestibular Coriolis cross-coupling
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
It has been reported that females are more susceptible to motion sickness than males. Supporting evidence is primarily based on retrospective survey questionnaires and self-reporting. We investigated if there is a gender difference in motion sickness susceptibility using objective and subjective measurements under controlled laboratory conditions. Thirty healthy subjects (14 males and 16 females) between the ages of 18-46 years were exposed to Coriolis cross-coupling stimulation, induced by 120 degrees /s yaw rotation and a simultaneous 45 degrees pitch forward head movement in the sagittal plane every 12 seconds. Cutaneous forearm and calf blood flow, blood pressure, and heart rate were monitored. Graybiel's diagnostic criteria were used to assess sickness susceptibility before and after motion exposure. Golding and Kerguelen's scale was used to assess the severity of symptoms during motion exposure. A significant (p<0.01) increase of forearm and calf blood flow during cross-coupling stimulation was observed in both sexes. However, the subjective symptoms rating and blood flow measurements indicate that there was no significant difference between male and female subjects. Our data also suggests that females may be more inclined to admit discomfort as indicated by their responses to a survey of motion sickness history prior to the experiment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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