MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006093975 · doi:10.1080/00140130110115840

Reliability of the vertical spinal creep response measured in sitting (asymptomatic and low-back pain subjects)

2002· article· en· W2006093975 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rotsalai Kanlayanaphotporn, Marie Williams, Ian Fulton, Patricia Trott

Bibliographic record

VenueErgonomics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsAsymptomaticCreepPreloadLow back painSittingReliability (semiconductor)MedicineBack painLumbarPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMaterials scienceAnesthesiaSurgeryHemodynamicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vertical spinal creep (or change in stature) has been used as an index of spinal loading, yet reliability of the testing protocol has not been fully examined. This study investigated the reliability of a vertical spinal creep response in 10 asymptomatic and five low-back pain subjects. Each subject performed the 25-min testing protocol, which consisted of three phases (5-min preload, 10-min loaded and 10-min unloaded), at the same time on two separate days. Good reliabilities in vertical spinal creep response between two days of testing were demonstrated for both asymptomatic and low-back pain subjects.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueErgonomicsSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207