Unsupported Eyes Closed Sitting and Quiet Standing Share Postural Control Strategies in Healthy Individuals
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 study aimed to (1) compare postural stability between sitting and standing in healthy individuals and (2) define center-of-pressure (COP) measures during sitting that could also explain standing stability. Fourteen healthy individuals randomly maintained (1) two short-sitting positions with eyes open or closed, with or without hand support, and (2) one standing position with eyes open with both upper limbs resting alongside the body. Thirty-six COP measures based on time and frequency series were computed. Greater COP displacement and velocity along with lower frequency measures were found for almost all directional components during standing compared with both sitting positions. The velocity, 95% confidence ellipse area, and centroidal frequency were found to be correlated between unsupported sitting and standing. Despite evidenced differences between sitting and standing, similarities in postural control were highlighted when sitting stability was the most challenging. These findings support further investigation between dynamic sitting and standing balance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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