Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subhadra Evans, Jennie Tsao, and Lonnie Zeltzer Yoga is a discipline developed in ancient India, characterized as a science of self-study and awareness through asanas (body postures), pranayama (patterns of breathing), and meditation. Yoga has been embraced in Western settings as a form of exercise and relaxation. Currently, yoga programs are relatively low cost, widely available, and safe when performed properly. Despite the wide use of yoga in the community, little research exists to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of yoga to address health problems and to promote well-being in children. In the Pediatric Pain Program at UCLA we are currently attempting to address this gap in the literature by conducting a series of yoga interventions for young people with chronic pain. In this commentary, we will introduce the reader to Iyengar yoga (IY), provide a summary of our work in the area including the development of a theoretical model, and outline future research directions. IY is distinct from other traditions of yoga in its emphasis on anatomical alignment, use of props, sequences of postures that are tailored for medical conditions, and systematized teacher training that includes knowledge of physiology, anatomy and yoga philosophy (Iyengar, 2008). Teachers study for at least 7 years before being certified to work with students who have therapeutic needs, including children with chronic pain. Training includes the modification of poses for individuals with physical limitations and the use of props to prevent straining and injuries. Given their training in the use of yoga for people with physical limitations, IY teachers certified in therapeutics may be considered suitable for chronic pain patients. Not all styles of yoga demonstrate an extensive teacher training system and caution must be exercised in recommending yoga classes that do not have a demonstrable teacher training program or experience with medical populations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".