Repeatability of measurement in determining stature in sitting and standing postures
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
The aim of this study was to determine the effect of sitting and standing postures on the repeatability of a stadiometer designed to detect small variations in spinal length. Two groups of ten healthy subjects, with no previous or known history of back problems, participated in this study. One group was measured in the standing posture, while the other group was measured in a sitting posture. All subjects gave informed consent to participate in this study. Subjects had a set of landmarks defining the spinal contour marked on their backs and then stood in the stadiometer for three series of ten measurements to be performed. At the end of each measurement, the subjects were requested to move away from and then be repositioned in the stadiometer. Subjects improved the repeatability across the measurement series. At the end of the second measurement series, all subjects presented mean standard deviations of 0.43 +/- 0.08 mm (range 0.30-0.50 mm) in the standing posture. In the sitting posture, deviations of less than 0.05 mm were obtained only at the end of the third measurement series (0.48 +/- 0.08 mm; range 0.34-0.62 mm), suggesting that this posture required three measurement series before repeatable measurements could be assured rather than two in the standing posture.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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