MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049631542 · doi:10.1080/02640410802669161

Resultant knee joint moments for lateral movement tasks on sliding and non-sliding sport surfaces

2009· article· en· W2049631542 on OpenAlexaff
Benno M. Nigg, Darren J. Stefanyshyn, Antra I. Rozitis, Annegret Mündermann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sports Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnkleJoint (building)KinematicsGround reaction forceKnee JointGeologyOrthodonticsMathematicsStructural engineeringPhysicsMedicineAnatomyEngineeringSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to compare ankle and knee joint moments observed when playing on sport surfaces that slide slightly relative to the ground with the moments observed when playing on conventional sport surfaces. Three-dimensional resultant internal joint moments and kinematic characteristics of the lower extremity were quantified for 21 university basketball players when performing v-cut and side-shuffle tasks on three types of sliding surface (interlocking tiles) and on two types of conventional surface (maple wood and rolled vinyl). Translational and rotational friction between the five test surfaces and a test shoe were also quantified. The five sport surfaces moved horizontally between 0.2 and 1.6 mm during the landing phase of the two tasks. The medio-lateral ground reaction forces were lowest for the surfaces with the highest horizontal movement. Resultant ankle joint moments were lower and resultant knee moments were higher on the sliding surfaces than the conventional surfaces. Sport surfaces that allow a few millimetres of horizontal movement during ground contact may reduce joint loading at the ankle joint, but increase joint loading at the knee joint, when compared with conventional sport surfaces, and thus may influence the prevalence of knee injuries.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations33
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sports SciencesSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207