Core Muscle Strengthening on a Portable Abdominal Machine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty-nine men and women who were between 17 and 49 years of age were examined to evaluate the effectiveness of a new abdominal exercise device,the Cross Crunch machine (Savvier,LP, Carlsbad,CA),on muscle use during abdominal flexion exercises.Subjects were a mixture of fit and sedentary individuals.They were engaged in exercise on the Cross Crunch machine in the seated position,and the exercise was compared with supine conventional crunches without the machine.The muscles studied were the rectus abdominis and the external oblique muscles. To evaluate the use of the muscles, electromyogram (EMG) electrodes were placed on the right and left rectus abdominis muscles and the right and left external oblique muscles.The relationship between workload on the portable abdominal machine and EMG of the rectus abdominis and oblique muscles was linear.At the heaviest workload, work accomplished (duration x EMG amplitude) with the Cross Crunch was 1.9 times higher than the work per
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.010 |
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".