MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of gait symmetry after stroke: A comparison of current methods and recommendations for standardization

2009· article· en· W2054107585 on OpenAlexafffund
Kara K. Patterson, William H. Gage, Dina Brooks, Sandra E. Black, William E. McIlroy

Bibliographic record

VenueGait & Posture · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of WaterlooToronto Rehabilitation InstituteSunnybrook Health Science CentreHeart and Stroke FoundationThe Wilson CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSymmetry (geometry)GaitPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStandardizationSwingAsymmetryPopulationPsychologyStroke (engine)Physical therapyMedicineMathematicsComputer sciencePhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.100
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1000.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.428 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations725
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueGait & PostureSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207