Reliability of Isokinetic and Isometric Knee-Extensor Force in Older Women
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
Because of the need for efficient, consistent strength measurements, the test-retest reliability of concentric, isometric, and eccentric strength; concentric work; and concentric power was determined in older women without a familiarization session. The reliability of measures derived from a single peak score were compared with those derived from an averaged score. On 2 occasions 25 older women with a mean age of 72 +/- 6 years performed 3 submaximal knee extensions and 5 maximal contractions on an isokinetic dynamometer at 90 degrees/s (CON), 0 degrees/s, and -90 degrees/s on both lower limbs. Statistical analyses for peak and averaged values (best 3 contractions of 5) exhibited good relative reliability (ICCs > .88), except for CON power. Typical error as a coefficient of variation and ratio limits of agreement for peak and averaged score values were larger than desired, with CON power scores demonstrating unacceptable error ranges. Although relative reliability of this 1-session assessment protocol was acceptable, further research is needed to determine whether additional practice trials could enhance absolute reliability.
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 | 0.000 | 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