Durability of running shoes with ethylene vinyl acetate or polyurethane midsoles
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
Ethylene vinyl acetate and polyurethane are widely used materials for shoe midsoles. The present study investigated the durability of running shoes made from ethylene vinyl acetate and one type of polyurethane (polyurethane-1), which have similar hardness and density, and another type of polyurethane (polyurethane-2), which has high hardness/density. All shoes differed from one another only in terms of the midsole material used. Eight male runners participated in the present study and used the shoes to run 500 km (10 × 50 km). The cushioning and energy return characteristics of each shoe were measured using an impact tester before and after each 50-km run. The results showed that as the running distance increased, the peak force of midsole materials changed with different patterns. Ethylene vinyl acetate and polyurethane-1 showed greater cushioning than polyurethane-2 over 500 km (ethylene vinyl acetate, 918.2-968.0 N; polyurethane-1, 909.6-972.9 N; polyurethane-2, 983.0-1105.6 N). Polyurethane-1 showed greater cushioning from 200 km to 300 km compared with 0 km (0 km, 972.9 ± 66.3 N; 200 km, 909.6 ± 61.2 N; 250 km, 921.9 ± 51.2 N; 300 km, 924.6 ± 51.9 N). The cushioning of ethylene vinyl acetate shoes was diminished after 500 km compared with that at 0 km (968.0 ± 25.9 N vs. 921.1 ± 20.1 N). Ethylene vinyl acetate resulted in greater energy returns than polyurethane. Both foam category and hardness/density affected the critical biomechanical properties of running shoes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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