MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041084361 · doi:10.1080/00222895.2012.663012

Reformulation in the Phase Plane Enhances Smoothness Rater Accuracy in Stroke

2012· article· en· W2041084361 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michael Wininger, Nam Hoon Kim, William Craelius

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Motor Behavior · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthMcMaster UniversityNational Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsJerkSmoothnessMetric (unit)Wilcoxon signed-rank testPhase (matter)Phase planeStroke (engine)Physical medicine and rehabilitationMathematicsMonotonic functionStatisticsAudiologyPsychologyAccelerationMedicineMathematical analysisMann–Whitney U testPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To improve the characterization of motor impairment, we compared the sensitivities of a phase plane metric with temporal domain measures derived from integrated squared jerk (ISJ). Five subjects with stroke and a cohort of 21 neurologically intact volunteers performed self-paced, isolated elbow flexions. Analysis of angular trajectories from the stroke group revealed that temporal domain metrics failed to detect a performance deficit at the p < .05 level, while the phase plane metric did resolve a deficit (p < .01). When applied to a subset of movements with arrest periods, the phase measure also uniquely identified impairment (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, p < .001). Finally, when tested on a data-driven model, the phase measure, but not temporal metrics, increased monotonically with the severity of trajectory distortions. We conclude that motion smoothness can be accurately measured in the phase plane.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Motor BehaviorSame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207