Examination of Weight Transfer Strategies During the Execution of Grand Battement Devant at the Barre, in the Center, and Traveling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine grand battement devant at the barre, in the center, and traveling through space. The primary focus was to consider weight transfer in three conditions: from two feet to one foot for the barre and center conditions, and from one foot to the other foot in traveling. Forty female dancers volunteered (mean age 30.0 ± 13.0 yrs) and were placed in three groups: beginner (n = 12), intermediate (n = 14), and advanced (n = 14). Data were collected with a 7-camera Vicon motion capture system using a Plug-in Gait Full Body Marker set and with two Kistler force plates. Dancers executed five grand battement devant in each of three conditions in randomized order: at the barre in 1st position, in the center in 1st position, and traveling through space. Four variables were investigated: center of gravity of the full trunk, center of gravity of the pelvis, center of gravity of the upper trunk, and center of mass. Data were analyzed in three intervals-stance to battement initiation (STN to GBI), initiation to battement peak (GBI to GBP), and peak to end (GBP to END)-and in the x-axis and y-axis. The main effect condition was significant for all four variables in both x-axis and y-axis (p<0.001). There were no significant differences for training and no significant condition X training interactions. Condition was significant for all three intervals (STN to GBI, GBI to GBP, and GBP to END) for all four variables in both axes (p<0.01). Dance educators might consider the importance of allocating sufficient time in dance practice to each of the three conditions-barre, center, and traveling-to ensure development of a variety of motor strategies for weight transfer.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".