MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112615093 · doi:10.1080/00222895.2014.974493

Head Posture Influences Low Back Muscle Endurance Tests in 11-Year-Old Children

2014· article· en· W2112615093 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 · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBack musclesPhysical medicine and rehabilitationLow back painPhysical therapyMedicineNeck musclesForward head posturePsychologyAudiologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Poor low back muscle endurance has been shown to be a predictor of chronic low back pain. While posture is a modulator of low back muscle endurance, it is unclear whether the phenomenon is neural or mechanical. This study examined low back muscle endurance with changing head and neck posture in a sample of 117 children using the Biering-Sørensen test. Each subject performed the test in a neutral posture followed by randomly selected flexed and extended head and neck positions. Head posture was found to significantly influence low back muscle endurance within subjects (p < .001), with extension yielding the highest endurance scores (boys = 186.6 ± 66.2 s; girls = 192.1 ± 59 s), followed by a neutral posture (boys = 171.3 ± 56.5 s; girls = 181.7 ± 57.3 s), and flexion (boys = 146.2 ± 63.8 s; girls = 159.8 ± 49.3 s). Given the minimal influence of changing moment from head and neck posture, it appears other mechanisms influence endurance score.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.285 · 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