MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099184608 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2006.259847

Plantar Pressure Parameters for Dynamic Gait Stability Analysis

2006· article· en· W2099184608 on OpenAlexaff
Edward D. Lemaire, Ajoy Biswas, Jonathan Kofman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlantar pressureStability (learning theory)Position (finance)GaitComputer sciencePressure measurementSimulationTask (project management)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPressure sensorStructural engineeringControl theory (sociology)EngineeringArtificial intelligenceMedicineMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic stability measurement is necessary to evaluate human performance over a variety of locomotor environments. In this paper, the suitability of parameters extracted from plantar-pressure measurements as input into a dynamic stability model was investigated. FScan in-shoe pressure data were collected from 15 subjects as they completed four successively more unstable walking tasks. Six parameters met the criteria of being reliably calculated from plantar pressure data, increasing as the task became more unstable, and relating to past measures from the literature: anterior/posterior centre of force (CoF) position, medio-lateral CoF position, double support time, stance time, cell triggering frequency, and maximum lateral CoF position. These parameters could be combined to create an index of dynamic gait stability.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations48
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207