MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Low Back Stability: From Formal Description to Issues for Performance and Rehabilitation

2001· review· en· W2033791990 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart M. McGill

Bibliographic record

VenueExercise and Sport Sciences Reviews · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStability (learning theory)Physical therapyComputer sciencePsychologyMedicineMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low back stability: from formal description to issues for performance and rehabilitation. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 26-31, 2001. The concept of stability, together with notions of design and the application of stabilization exercise, is briefly synthesized. The objective is to challenge muscle systems to achieve sufficient functional stability but in a way that spares the spine of excessive exacerbating load.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations451
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExercise and Sport Sciences ReviewsSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207