Comparing Methods of Quantifying Tibial Acceleration Slope
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
Considerable variability in tibial acceleration slope (AS) values, and different interpretations of injury risk based on these values, have been reported. Acceleration slope variability may be due in part to variations in the quantification methods used. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to quantify differences in tibial AS values determined using end points at various percentage ranges between impact and peak tibial acceleration, as a function of either amplitude or time. Tibial accelerations were recorded from 20 participants (21.8 +/- 2.9 years, 1.7 m +/- 0.1 m, 75.1 kg +/- 17.0 kg) during 24 unshod heel impacts using a human pendulum apparatus. Nine ranges were tested from 5-95% (widest range) to 45-55% (narrowest range) at 5% increments. AS(Amplitude) values increased consistently from the widest to narrowest ranges, whereas the AS(Time) values remained essentially the same. The magnitudes of AS(Amplitude) values were significantly higher and more sensitive to changes in percentage range than AS(Time) values derived from the same impact data. This study shows that tibial AS magnitudes are highly dependent on the method used to calculate them. Researchers are encouraged to carefully consider the method they use to calculate AS so that equivalent comparisons and assessments of injury risk across studies can be made.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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