MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1848662066 · doi:10.1177/107110070002100908

Influence of Foot, Leg and Shoe Characteristics on Subjective Comfort

2000· article· en· W1848662066 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFoot & Ankle International · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCushioningMedicineBarefootFlexibility (engineering)Physical medicine and rehabilitationFoot (prosody)StiffnessBiomechanicsPhysical therapyOrthodonticsStructural engineeringMathematicsEngineeringAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationships between foot and leg characteristics, shoe characteristics, and the short-term subjective comfort of three different pairs of athletic shoes. Static measurements of foot dimension and leg angles were taken from eighteen subjects. Subjects rated the comfort of three different athletic shoes for standing, walking and running. The shoes were quantified by internal dimensions, hardness, flexibility and torsional stiffness. Average comfort ratings decreased from standing to walking to running. One shoe seemed suited for only a small group of subjects. In contrast, another shoe was generally comfortable for a large group. Skeletal alignment, specifically eversion angle, was related to comfort for one shoe. Therefore, fit of the shoe is not sufficient for comfort. Skeletal alignment, shoe torsional stiffness and cushioning seem to be mechanical variables which may be important for comfort.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it