Cycling with noncircular chainring system changes the three-dimensional kinematics of the lower limbs
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
This study investigated the three-dimensional (3-D) pedaling kinematics using a noncircular chainring system and a conventional system. Five cyclists pedaled at their preferred cadence at a workload of 300 W using two crank systems. Flexion/extension of the hip, knee and ankle as well as shank rotation, foot adduction/abduction, and pedal angle were measured. Joint range of motion (ROM) and angular displacements were compared between the systems. Sagittal plane ROM was significantly greater (P < 0.05) at the hip (noncircular system = 39 +/- 3 degrees; conventional system = 34 +/- 4 degrees) the knee (noncircular system = 69 +/- 4 degrees; conventional system = 57 +/- 10 degrees), and ankle (noncircular system = 21 +/- 2 degrees; conventional system = 19 +/- 4 degrees) resulting in greater pedal ROM (noncircular system = 43 +/- 3 degrees; conventional system = 37 +/- 5 degrees) while using the noncircular system. Shank rotation ROM was significantly lower (P < 0.05) while using the noncircular chainring (noncircular system = 10 +/- 1 degree; conventional system = 14 +/- 1 degree). These results support a significant effect of the noncircular chainring system on pedaling kinematics during submaximal exercise.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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