MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108139916 · doi:10.1123/jab.29.3.365

Average Torsion Axis Location of Athletic Movements: Subject Specific or Movement Specific?

2013· article· en· W2108139916 on OpenAlexaff
Eveline Graf, Darren J. Stefanyshyn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Biomechanics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTorsion (gastropod)ForefootScrew axisLong axisHeelVertical axisSignificant differenceAnatomyMathematicsGeometryKinematicsOrthodonticsGeodesyPhysicsGeologyMedicineClassical mechanicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foot torsion angles have previously been studied for different athletic movements. Sport shoes often contain a torsion element even though the location of the rotation axis of the foot is unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to quantify the torsion axis location and determine if the location is influenced by the movement or the subject. The torsion axis location was calculated using a modified finite helical axis approach, which allowed the calculation of the rotation axis between the forefoot and the rearfoot without the influence of forefoot flexion. The torsion axis location during the lateral jab was 9.72 mm below and 26.96 mm lateral to a marker located at the posterior, central heel, whereas the shuffle cut resulted in an axis location of 9.59 mm below and 26.19 mm lateral to the reference marker. There was no significant difference for the average axis location between movements. There was, however, a significant difference for the location between subjects, indicating a subject specificity of the torsion axis. The results of the current study are the first to quantify the torsion axis location of the human foot during athletic movements.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied BiomechanicsSame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207