Kinematics of the Ankle Joint Complex in Snowboarding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because snowboarders are known to injure their ankles more often than Alpine skiers, it has been postulated that stiffer snowboard boots would provide better protection to the ankle than current soft boots do. Snowboarders are also known to injure their front ankle more often than their back ankle, presumably because of the asymmetrical rotations of the ankles due to asymmetrical binding adjustement. To test these hypotheses, we measured the kinematics of the feet and legs of 5 snowboarders wearing soft boots and stiffer step-in boots during snowboarding maneuvers using an electromagnetic motion tracking system. The results were expressed in anatomically relevant rotations of the ankle joint complex, namely dorsi-/plantar flexion, eversion/inversion, and internal/external rotation. The measured ankle rotations show differences in the movement patterns of the front and back legs. Step-in boots were shown to allow less dorsiflexion, eversion, and external rotation than softer boots, possibly explaining why they are associated with a lower rate of fractures of the talus than soft boots.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".