The effect of translational and rotational traction on lower extremity joint loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have linked footwear traction to lower extremity non-contact injury; however, these studies mainly focussed on rotational traction exclusively. While studies have shown that increases in traction lead to increases in joint loading, represented by joint moments, these studies failed to determine how the individual components of rotational and translational traction affect joint loading. Therefore, this study investigated how each component of traction independently affects lower extremity joint loading. Traction testing was performed using a robotic testing machine on three shoes that had independent alterations of translational and rotational traction. All testing was conducted on a sample piece of artificial turf. Kinematic and kinetic data were then collected on 10 athletes performing two cutting movements in each shoe condition. As rotational and translational traction were independently altered, decreased rotational traction led to significant decreases in transverse and frontal plane joint loading at the ankle and knee joints, while increases in translational traction led to increases in frontal plane joint loading at the ankle and knee joints. Increases in joint loading in the transverse and frontal planes are one of the possible mechanisms of lower extremity non-contact injury. Both translational and rotational traction can independently alter the joint loading.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".