Effect of a Community-Based Argentine Tango Dance Program on Functional Balance and Confidence in Older Adults
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
Tango-dancing and walking programs are compared in nondemented seniors at risk for falls. Fallers (N = 30) age 62-91 were randomly assigned to a 10-wk (40 hr, 2 hr 2x/wk) tango class or walk group. The Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) scale, sit-to-stand scores, and normal and fast walk were measured pre-, post-, and 1 month postintervention. Two-way repeated-measures ANOVAs indicated a significant main effect (p < .01) for time on all measures. Group and interaction effects for ABC led to improvement only in tango because of high baseline mean for the walk group. Clinical improvements measured using Established Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly scoring were greater for the tango group. From these preliminary results it is suggested that although both interventions are effective activities for increasing strength and walk speed, tango might result in greater improvements than walking in balance skills and in walking speed in the 10-wk intervention. The study needs to be repeated with a greater sample size to determine the effectiveness of walking on fear of falling.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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