Lower limb muscle activity and kinematics of an unanticipated cutting manoeuvre: a gender comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This investigation compared the amplitude and the timing of the muscle activity of the lower limb, as well as the three-dimensional kinematics of the hip, knee and ankle joints, of male and female elite soccer players performing an unanticipated cutting manoeuvre. These data were recorded for 15 female and 15 male participants for five successful cutting manoeuvres. For this manoeuvre to be performed in an unanticipated manner, the participants were instructed to execute one of three tasks, which were signalled to them with a target board composed of three different coloured lights. Female participants performed the cutting manoeuvre with greater lateral gastrocnemius activity in comparison with the male participants. It was also observed that they contracted their vastus lateralis to a greater extent than their vastus medialis, whereas the men adopted the opposite strategy. These neuromuscular control strategies adopted by the female athletes may elucidate the reasons for which women struck the ground with a more abducted knee during the cutting task. Given that this knee position places greater strain on the anterior cruciate ligament, a restoration of the medial/lateral activation balance of the lower limb muscles may reduce one's risk of injury.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".