MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2154009166 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2005.1616934

Design, Construction and Evaluation of an Electromechanical Stance-Control Knee-Ankle-Foot Orthosis

2005· article· en· W2154009166 on OpenAlexaff
Terris Yakimovich, Jonathan Kofman, Edward D. Lemaire

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSagittal planeSwingKinematicsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnkleGaitKnee JointKnee flexionWeight-bearingGait analysisOrthoticsMedicineComputer scienceEngineeringPhysicsSurgeryAnatomyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new electromechanical Stance-Control Knee-Ankle-Foot Orthosis (SCKAFO) was designed to provide improved gait for people with knee-extensor weakness. This SCKAFO inhibits knee flexion at any knee angle while allowing knee extension during weight bearing. During swing or other non-weight bearing activities, the SCKAFO allows free knee motion. A prototype joint was mechanically tested to determine the moment at failure, loading behaviour, and device safety. Quantitative kinematic gait analysis of three able-bodied subjects and three knee-ankle-foot-orthosis (KAFO) users showed that the new SCKAFO had a desired minimal effect on able-bodied walking gait. The SCKAFO permitted a mean increase in sagittal knee motion (488%) during swing for the three KAFO users and a reduction in pelvic obliquity and hip abduction angle abnormalities during terminal stance and swing for two KAFO users.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studies→French-language works237,207→