MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090855143 · doi:10.1080/00222890903269237

The Effect of Knee Joint Angle on Torque Control

2010· article· en· W2090855143 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

VenueJournal of Motor Behavior · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsTorqueKnee JointKnee flexionMathematicsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStandard deviationJoint (building)Coefficient of variationOrthodonticsMedicinePhysicsStatisticsSurgeryEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the author's investigation was to examine the effect of knee joint angle on torque control of the quadriceps muscle group. In all, 12 healthy adults produced maximal voluntary contractions and submaximal torque (15, 30, and 45% MVC [maximal voluntary contraction]) at leg flexion angles of 15 degrees , 30 degrees , 60 degrees , and 90 degrees below the horizontal plane. As expected, MVC values changed with respect to joint angle with maximum torque output being greatest at 60 degrees and least at 15 degrees . During the submaximal tasks, participants appropriately scaled their torque output to the required targets. Absolute variability (i.e., standard deviation) of torque output was greatest at 60 degrees and 90 degrees knee flexion. However, relative variability as indexed by coefficient of variation (CV) decreased as joint angle increased, with the greatest CV occurring at 15 degrees . These results are congruent with the hypothesis that joint angle influences the control of torque.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.210 · 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