MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086294035 · doi:10.1080/00140139.2013.851281

Effect of backpack load on the head, cervical spine and shoulder postures in children during gait termination

2013· article· en· W2086294035 on OpenAlexaff
Shi Wei Mo, Dongqing Xu, Jing Xian Li, Meng Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueErgonomics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBackpackGaitPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineHead (geology)Forward head postureCervical spinePhysical therapyEngineeringSurgeryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twelve boys with an average age of 9.9 years were instructed to carry backpacks that weighed 0%, 10% and 15% of their body weights (BWs) to complete planned and unplanned gait termination experiments. The craniohorizontal, craniovertebral and sagittal shoulder posture angles at the sagittal plane as well as the anterior head alignment and coronal shoulder posture angles at the coronal plane were analysed. Results revealed significantly smaller craniohorizontal and sagittal shoulder posture angles during planned gait termination and a significantly smaller sagittal shoulder posture angle during unplanned gait termination under loaded conditions compared with those at 0% BW backpacks. Furthermore, the coronal shoulder posture angles at 10% and 15% BW during planned and unplanned gait terminations were significantly larger than those at 0% BW. Therefore, subjects were more likely to have a forward head posture, rounded shoulder posture and increased lateral tilting of the shoulders during gait termination as backpack loads were increased. However, gait termination, whether planned or unplanned, did not elicit a remarkable effect on posture.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.351 · 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

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueErgonomicsSame topicOccupational Health and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207