MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Altering muscle activity in the lower extremities by running with different shoes

2002· article· en· W2077590655 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To provide evidence that lower-extremity muscle activity during running is tuned in response to the loading rate of the impact forces at heel-strike. METHODS: Six runners ran two 30-min trials per week for 4 wk. The trials tested two shoes which differed only in the material hardness of the midsole. The shoes were tested in a randomized sequence. Bipolar surface EMG was recorded from the muscles of the rectus femoris, biceps femoris, medial gastrocnemius, and tibialis anterior. EMG was resolved into time-frequency space using wavelet techniques. EMG was analyzed for the 150 ms time window immediately before heel-strike. RESULTS: The intensity of the EMG and the ratio of the EMG intensity between high and low frequency components both showed significant changes between shoes, subjects, and muscles. Additionally, the intensity ratio showed a significant change over the course of each 30-min run. CONCLUSIONS: Lower-extremity muscle activity used to tune the muscles for the impact task can be altered by changing the material hardness of the shoe. The changes in the EMG frequency ratio suggest that muscle fiber-type recruitment patterns can also be altered by the choice of midsole material.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.207 · 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