Avaliação do Controle Postural e do Tipo do Pé de Pessoas com Deficiência Visual
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A alteração do equilíbrio em deficientes visuais é alvo de investigações, uma vez que equilíbrio e visão estão inter-relacionados. Além disso, outro importante fator na manutenção do controle postural é o aspecto biomecânico dos pés. Este estudo teve como objetivo avaliar o controle postural e o tipo dos pés de pessoas com deficiência visual. Para tanto, participaram do estudo 17 adultos com deficiênciavisual que foram avaliados por meio do sistema de baropodometria. Os dados referentes à oscilação do centro de pressão foram analisados por meio do software Conformat Research 5.8, e submetidos ao teste estatístico de Mann-Whitney. Os resultados mostraram que não houve diferença estatisticamente significante no controle postural ao comparar indivíduos com resíduo e sem resíduo visual e que apresentavam pé normal e pé com alterações biomecânicas, o que demonstra que o déficit visual foi o principal fator das alterações no controle postural para os participantes desse estudo.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".