Determination of body segment masses and centers of mass using a force plate method in individuals of different morphology
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
Body segment masses and center of mass (COM) locations are required to calculate intersegmental forces and net joint moments using inverse or forward dynamics equations. These inertial properties are estimated from methods involving cadavers or living individuals. The present clinical methods are limited to similar populations from which the anthropometric measures were obtained. This study presented a simple force plate method that can be used to determine subject-specific segment masses and COM locations and compared it to other well-known methods. The proposed method was tested in individuals with different body mass index (i.e., lean, normal, and obese) to verify its sensitivity. All the segmental mass and COM values obtained from the force plate method were within the range of those of the other methods for the entire sample. Significant differences were identified between the morphological groups in relative segmental masses at the upper arm and leg and foot, and COM locations at the leg and foot and head and trunk as obtained from the force plate method (p<0.05). The proposed method involves direct procedures to determine subject-specific segmental masses and COM locations. It is sensitive to detect differences between various morphological 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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it