The effect of bilateral asymmetry of muscle strength on the height of a squat jump: A computer simulation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the effect of bilateral asymmetry of muscle strength on maximal height of the squat jump. A computer simulation technique was used to develop two kinds of 3D human lower limb musculoskeletal model (model-symmetry and model-asymmetry). The total muscle strength of the two models was set to be identical. Bilateral muscle strength was equal in the model-symmetry simulation, while the model-asymmetry simulation was performed with a 10% bilateral strength asymmetry. A forward dynamics approach was used to simulate squat jumps. The squat jumps were successfully generated, producing jump heights of 0.389 m for model-symmetry and 0.387 m for model-asymmetry. The small difference in height (0.5%) indicated that the effect of the 10% bilateral asymmetry of muscle strength on jump height is negligible. With model-asymmetry, the strong leg compensated for the muscle strength deficit of the weak leg. Importantly, the mono-articular and large extensor muscles of the hip and knee joint of the strong leg, including the gluteus maximus, adductor magnus, and vasti, compensated for the muscle strength deficit of the weak leg.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".