Bibliographic record
Abstract
Any modification of movement - especially movement patterns that have been honed over a number of years - requires re-organization of the neuromuscular patterns responsible for governing the movement performance. This motor learning can be enhanced through a number of methods that are utilized in research and clinical settings alike. In general, verbal feedback of performance in real-time or knowledge of results following movement is commonly used clinically as a preliminary means of instilling motor learning. Depending on patient preference and learning style, visual feedback (e.g. through use of a mirror or different types of video) or proprioceptive guidance utilizing therapist touch, are used to supplement verbal instructions from the therapist. Indeed, a combination of these forms of feedback is commonplace in the clinical setting to facilitate motor learning and optimize outcomes. Laboratory-based, quantitative motion analysis has been a mainstay in research settings to provide accurate and objective analysis of a variety of movements in healthy and injured populations. While the actual mechanisms of capturing the movements may differ, all current motion analysis systems rely on the ability to track the movement of body segments and joints and to use established equations of motion to quantify key movement patterns. Due to limitations in acquisition and processing speed, analysis and description of the movements has traditionally occurred offline after completion of a given testing session. This paper will highlight a new supplement to standard motion analysis techniques that relies on the near instantaneous assessment and quantification of movement patterns and the display of specific movement characteristics to the patient during a movement analysis session. As a result, this novel technique can provide a new method of feedback delivery that has advantages over currently used feedback methods.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".