MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Muscle Reflexes in Motion

2006· review· en· W2040733861 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueExercise and Sport Sciences Reviews · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWalter Burke Institute for Theoretical PhysicsChristopher and Dana Reeve Foundation
KeywordsReflexExcitatory postsynaptic potentialNeuroscienceStretch reflexInhibitory postsynaptic potentialBalance (ability)Physical medicine and rehabilitationMovement (music)PsychologyMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Methods have been developed to study excitatory and inhibitory reflexes during human movements because dramatic task-dependent changes occur between different voluntary activities, and phase-dependent changes occur within cyclic movements. Interestingly, segmental reflexes are relatively unimportant for standing balance, although reflex responses are strong, yet they contribute substantially to force in several muscles during walking, when some reflex responses are weaker. Improved methods for studying reflexes during human movement illustrate their important, adaptive function.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.241 · 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