Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimates of joint or limb impedance are commonly used in the study of how the nervous system controls posture and movement, and how that control is altered by injury to the neural or musculoskeletal systems. Impedance characterizes the dynamic relationship between an imposed perturbation of joint position and the torques generated in response. While there are many practical reasons for estimating impedance rather than its inverse, admittance, it is an acausal representation of the limb mechanics that can lead to difficulties in interpretation or use. The purpose of this study was to explore the acausal nature of nonparametric estimates of joint impedance representations to determine how they are influenced by common experimental and computational choices. This was accomplished by deriving discrete-time realizations of first- and second-order derivatives to illustrate two key difficulties in the physical interpretation of impedance impulse response functions. These illustrations were provided using both simulated and experimental data. It was found that the shape of the impedance impulse response depends critically on the selected sampling rate, and on the bandwidth and noise characteristics of the position perturbation used during the estimation process. These results provide important guidelines for designing experiments in which nonparametric estimates of impedance will be obtained, especially when those estimates are to be used in a multistep identification process.
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 | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".