Quantitative Analysis of the Limits of Stability in Sitting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study defines the limits of stability in sitting, and quantitatively assesses two measures of postural control relative to these limits. Young, healthy subjects sat, feet unsupported, on an elevated force plate. The limits of stability were determined by a least square fit of an ellipse to the center of pressure (CoP) excursion during maximal leaning in 8 directions. These were highly symmetrical and centered within the base of support. The ellipses had a mean eccentricity of 0.66 (major axis in the sagittal plane) and covered an area approximately 1/3 of the base of support. The CoP was then monitored over 4 min of quiet sitting, during which the postural sway covered an area<0.05% of the limits of stability and was closely centered within the latter. Finally, target-directed trunk movements were performed, in 5 directions, at 4 movement speeds and 3 target distances. Increased target distance and movement speed both decreased the margin of stability (distance between the CoP and the limits of stability), as did movement in the frontal plane, reflecting the eccentricity of the limits of stability. These combined findings support the validity of this quantitative method of defining the limits of stability in sitting, for healthy individuals.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".