MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2218449058 · doi:10.1093/ptj/86.2.215

Characteristics of Foot Movement in Tai Chi Exercise

2006· article· en· W2218449058 on OpenAlexaff
De Wei Mao, Youlian Hong, Jing Xian Li

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoot (prosody)Physical medicine and rehabilitationDuration (music)Movement (music)GaitPhysical therapySet (abstract data type)PsychologyLower limbMedicineComputer sciencePhysicsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The concept of proper foot movement is always emphasized in practicing Tai Chi (TC). The purposes of this study were to describe the foot movement characteristics of TC and to compare duration of single- and double-limb support time during TC and during walking. SUBJECTS: Sixteen experienced TC practitioners participated in the study. METHODS: The participants' performance of a whole set of 42-form TC movements was recorded with 2 cameras. A motion analysis system was used to identify the supporting and stepping characteristics of the foot during the practice. RESULTS: Seven foot support patterns and 6 step directions were identified. The results revealed that, compared with normal walking, TC movement had more double-limb support and less single-limb support in terms of total duration. The duration of each support pattern was longer, and movement from one pattern to the next was slow. The duration of each step direction was short, and changes of direction were frequent. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Support patterns changed slowly, and, combined with various step directions, they were found to be better than those of walking in simulating the gait challenges that may be encountered in daily activities.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations54
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical TherapySame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207