MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323707458 · doi:10.1123/jab.2015-0044

Calcaneal Plantar Flexion During the Stance Phase of Gait

2015· article· en· W2323707458 on OpenAlexaff
Stacy E. Stamm, Loren Z.F. Chiu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Biomechanics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForefootCalcaneusGaitHeelAnkleMedicineSubtalar jointRange of motionOrthodonticsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationArchGait analysisAnatomyPhysical therapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When the rear- and forefoot are constrained, calcaneal plantar flexion may occur, deforming the longitudinal arch. Previous research has reported calcaneal motion relative to the tibia or forefoot; these joint rotations may not accurately describe rotation of the calcaneus alone. This investigation: (1) characterized the calcaneus and leg segment and ankle joint rotations during stance in gait, and (2) described the range of calcaneal plantar flexion in different structural arch types. Men (n = 14) and women (n = 16) performed gait in a motion analysis laboratory. From heel strike to heel off, the leg rotated forward while the calcaneus plantar flexed. Before foot flat, calcaneal plantar flexion was greater than forward leg rotation, resulting in ankle plantar flexion. After foot flat, forward leg rotation was greater than calcaneal plantar flexion, resulting in ankle dorsiflexion. Structural arch type was classified using the longitudinal arch angle. The range of calcaneal plantar flexion from foot flat to heel off was small in low (-2° to -8°), moderate in high (-3° to -12°), and large in normal (-2° to -20°) structural arches. Calcaneal plantar flexion in gait during midstance may reflect functional arch characteristics, which vary depending on structural arch type.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied BiomechanicsSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207