Current Issues in the Design of Running and Court Shoes
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
This review paper focuses on the three most important functional design factors for sport shoes: injury prevention, performance and comfort. Concepts for these design factors are discussed for running and court shoes. For running shoes, pronation control and cushioning are still considered to be the key concepts for injury prevention despite the fact that conclusive clinical and epidemiological evidence is missing to show the efficacy of these design strategies. Several design features have been proposed to be effective in controlling the amount of pronation. However, the kinematic effects of such features seem to be subject-specific and rather small especially when looking at the actual skeletal motion. Recent running shoe research suggests that cushioning may not or only marginally be related to injuries and that cushioning during the impact phase of running may be more related to aspects such as comfort, muscle tuning or fatigue. For court shoes, lateral stability, torsional flexibility, cushioning and traction control appear to be important design strategies to decrease the risk of injury. With respect to running performance, the shoe concepts of weight reduction, efficiency and energy return are discussed. The concept of energy return does not seem to be a feasible concept whereas concepts which aim to minimize energy loss appear to be more promising and successful, e.g. weight reduction, reduction of muscle energy required for stabilization. For court shoes, optimal traction seems to be the key factor for performance. Research in the area of shoe comfort is still sparse. Cushioning, fitting and climate concepts appear to improve the comfort of both running and court shoes. Many investigations in the area of sport shoe research have shown that subject-specific responses can be expected. Different groups of athletes may require different types of shoes. The definition of these grouping characteristics and their design needs seem to be the most important challenge for the sport shoe researchers and manufacturers for the near future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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