Relative efficiency of abdominal muscles in spine stability
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using an iterative kinematics-driven nonlinear finite element model, relative efficiency of individual abdominal muscles in spinal stability in upright standing posture was investigated. Effect of load height on stability and muscle activities was also computed under different coactivity levels in abdominal muscles. The internal oblique was the most efficient muscle (compared with the external oblique and rectus abdominus) in providing stability while generating smaller spinal loads with lower fatigue rate of muscles. As the weight was held higher, stability deteriorated requiring additional flexor-extensor activities. The stabilising efficacy of abdominal muscles diminished at higher activities. The difference in critical loads in frontal and sagittal planes computed in the absence of abdominal coactivity disappeared under prescribed coactivities suggesting an optimal system in stability. The central nervous system may settle for a less stable spine in favour of lowering the risk of injury. Findings could help introduce stability criterion in optimisation models.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it