Gradierung der funktionellen Sportschuhparameter „Dämpfung” und „Vorfußflexibilität” am Laufschuh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On nearly every running event a heterogeneous structure of participants regarding body height and body weight can be observed. This study should figure out whether the running shoe manufacturers will consider this anthropometric variability. Moreover it should be investigated the runners needs based on different anthropometrics regarding preferred cushioning and forefoot flexibility properties. In order to check whether the running shoe manufacturers will apply a grading pattern, a dynamic material study with conventional running shoes in different sizes was conducted. In a second step a field study in Middle Europe and North America with 244 female and 227 male runners was organized. Every subject had to run and evaluate 7 different shoe modifications. Based on the material study it is to state, that the running shoe manufacturers currently do not consider a systematic grading of cushioning and forefoot flexibility properties. In contrast to this, the field study reveals the necessity to grade these properties. A shoe size dependent and a geographic grading concept are suggested. It is supposed, that the application of these grading concepts do not only provide a comfort improvement, but they also contribute to a reduction of joint loads of the lower extremities and consequently to a prevention of overuse injuries.
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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".