Cushioning and lateral stability functions of cloth sport shoes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we evaluated the protective functions of cloth sport shoes, including cushioning and lateral stability. Twelve male students participated in the study (mean +/- s: age 12.7 +/- 0.4 years, mass 40.7 +/- 5.9kg, height 1.50 +/- 0.04m). Cloth sport shoes, running shoes, basketball shoes, crosstraining shoes, and barefoot conditions were investigated in random sequence. Human pendulum and cutting movement tests were used to assess cushioning performance and lateral stability, respectively. For cushioning, the running shoes (2.06 body weight, BW) performed the best, while the cross-training shoes (2.30 BW) and the basketball shoes (2.37 BW) both performed better than the cloth sport shoes (2.55 BW) and going barefoot (2.63 BW). For the lateral stability test, range of inversion--eversion was found to be from 3.6 to 4.9 degrees, which was far less than that for adult participants (> 20 degrees). No significant differences were found between conditions. All conditions showed prolonged durations from foot-strike to maximum inversion (66-95 ms), which was less vigorous than that for adult participants (< 40 ms) and was unlikely to evoke intrinsic stability failure. In conclusion, the cloth sport shoe showed inferior cushioning capability but the same lateral stability as the other sports shoes for children.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".