MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determining the maximum diameter for holes in the shoe without compromising shoe integrity when using a multi-segment foot model

2011· article· en· W2143523581 on OpenAlex
Rebecca Shultz, Thomas R. Jenkyn

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsFowler Kennedy Sport Medicine ClinicWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForefootSagittal planeKinematicsCushioningFoot (prosody)ArchJoint (building)BarefootCoronal planeStructural engineeringEngineeringAnatomyPhysicsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measuring individual foot joint motions requires a multi-segment foot model, even when the subject is wearing a shoe. Each foot segment must be tracked with at least three skin-mounted markers, but for these markers to be visible to an optical motion capture system holes or 'windows' must be cut into the structure of the shoe. The holes must be sufficiently large avoiding interfering with the markers, but small enough that they do not compromise the shoe's structural integrity. The objective of this study was to determine the maximum size of hole that could be cut into a running shoe upper without significantly compromising its structural integrity or changing the kinematics of the foot within the shoe. Three shoe designs were tested: (1) neutral cushioning, (2) motion control and (3) stability shoes. Holes were cut progressively larger, with four sizes tested in all. Foot joint motions were measured: (1) hindfoot with respect to midfoot in the frontal plane, (2) forefoot twist with respect to midfoot in the frontal plane, (3) the height-to-length ratio of the medial longitudinal arch and (4) the hallux angle with respect to first metatarsal in the sagittal plane. A single subject performed level walking at her preferred pace in each of the three shoes with ten repetitions for each hole size. The largest hole that did not disrupt shoe integrity was an oval of 1.7cm×2.5cm. The smallest shoe deformations were seen with the motion control shoe. The least change in foot joint motion was forefoot twist in both the neutral shoe and stability shoe for any size hole. This study demonstrates that for a hole smaller than this size, optical motion capture with a cluster-based multi-segment foot model is feasible for measure foot in shoe kinematics in vivo.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.150 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it