MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121099842 · doi:10.1080/03610730109342354

Compensatory Stepping: The Biomechanics of a Preferred Response Among Older Adults

2001· article· en· W2121099842 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

VenueExperimental Aging Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsBalance (ability)BiomechanicsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationYoung adultAge groupsDynamic balanceLinear accelerationPerturbation (astronomy)AccelerationMedicinePsychologyPhysical therapyDevelopmental psychologyPhysicsDemographyPhysiologyClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to evaluate age-related differences in the mechanics of the compensatory stepping response to balance threats. A moving platform was used to disturb the balance of 16 younger (21 to 35 years) and 19 older (68 to 88 years) adults. Backward platform translations consisted of 15-cm displacements with peak accelerations ranging from 9.4 to 15.2 m/s2. Older adults were more likely to use a step to recover balance and stepped at lower perturbation magnitudes than younger adults. Group differences were not found in time to step initiation or segmental momentum. The lack of group differences in momentum revealed that lower perturbation accelerations created an equivalent or greater magnitude of body motion in older adults compared to higher accelerations experienced by younger adults. Older adults also showed a reduced ability to attenuate the input acceleration and experienced significantly greater linear acceleration of the head.

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)0.004
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.367 · 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