MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067528364 · doi:10.1002/nrc.1029

Strategies associated with altered segment parameters during voluntary gait modifications

2001· article· en· W2067528364 on OpenAlexaff
Meghan Reid, Stephen D. Prentice

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroscience Research Communications · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)GaitPhysical medicine and rehabilitationKnee flexionLower limbGait cycleBiomechanicsMechanical energySensitivity (control systems)Computer scienceKinematicsMathematicsMedicineEngineeringAnatomyPhysicsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The coordination of movement results from complex interactions between neural and mechanical systems. To investigate the influence of limb mechanics on the control strategies used during gait modifications, participants were instructed to walk and step over various obstacles (2,10, & 30cm) with and without an external mass (4.5kg) attached around the centre of mass of each leg segment. Overall, with the attached mass there was an increase in the amount of pull‐off energy applied at the hip, while the contribution of the knee to limb flexion decreased particularly for the higher obstacles. It was further found that knee action during weighted conditions served more to slow the backward motion of the leg following toe off than to flex the knee. The modifications employed to accomodate the change in limb dynamics illustrate both the flexibility of the locomotor control system and its sensitivity to the mechanical properties of the limb.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations7
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroscience Research CommunicationsSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207