Simulation Methods in the Foot Orthosis Development Process
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
Traditional methods for developing foot orthoses require extensive skilled manual labor.More modern methods have sought to address this with the introduction of computer enabled technologies such as digital scanning, computer aided design, and automated manufacturing.The current work further advances the process with the introduction of an additional computer enabled technology, simulation models, into two additional steps.First, a simulation model is used to achieve the postural adjustments to the foot normally done by a practitioner.This has the benefit of further automating the process, improving repeatability, and preventing the deformation of the plantar soft tissues that normally occurs with physical postural adjustment.Second, the simulation model is used in a routine to optimize plantar pressure distribution.When compared to a conventional method, the proposed approach yielded a 61% reduction in peak plantar pressure.Future work includes automating the optimization routines for a variety of metrics.Other applications for the current work include the development processes of orthoses and prostheses for other parts of the body.
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