MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168076957 · doi:10.1177/1071100713508394

Gait Analysis in Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Surgery—Topical Review, Part 1

2013· review· en· W2168076957 on OpenAlex
D. Joshua Mayich, Alison C. Novak, Daniel Vena, Timothy R. Daniels, James W. Brodsky

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

VenueFoot & Ankle International · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteSaint John Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOrthopedic surgeryAnkleGaitPhysical medicine and rehabilitationFoot (prosody)Gait analysisFoot and ankle surgeryPhysical therapyExpert opinionSurgeryIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Gait analysis, the systematic study of human walking, is a field that has been studied for well over 100 years. With the technological and scientific advancements of the last several decades, there has been substantial improvement in our understanding of the mechanics of human walking. Particularly important has been the advancement in understanding of the differences between normal and pathological gait. The purpose of this paper is to review the principles of gait analysis, with a particular focus on the underlying methods and science. This will assist orthopedic foot and ankle surgeons in better understanding the methods and meaning of gait research and the publications that commonly appear in the orthopedic foot and ankle surgery literature. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.304 · 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