Bibliographic record
Abstract
A very popular mode of training in recent years has been the use of instability devices and exercises to train the core musculature. Instability training is viewed by many as the most effective way to train the core; however, evidence on this topic paints a slightly different picture. An extensive review of the literature by Behm et al. 2010 (Appl. Physiol. Metab. Nutr. 35(1): 91-108) identified the fact that instability training can increase core muscle activation, but it may not be the best choice in all situations. Unstable training can reduce overall muscular power output, which may have important implications if the goal of a given training program is to maximize the output or physiological stress on a given muscle, as is the case in certain types of athletic training or in certain clinical exercise situations. Nevertheless, the balance of this evidence leads to the recommendations in the position stand (Behm et al. 2010, Appl. Physiol. Metab. Nutr. 35(1): 109-112) that instability training can play an important role as part of an overall periodized program for an athlete, as part of a rehabilitation program in recovery from injury, or as an interesting and novel training mode for the general population in pursuit of musculoskeletal health benefits who may not have access to or want to complete more intensive free-weight training programs. More research is needed to establish the effectiveness of instability training in preventing injury in sports, enhancing on-field sport performance, or for use in various clinical situations outside of rehabilitation for low back pain.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".