MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324719142 · doi:10.1249/jes.0000000000000009

Restoring Symmetry

2014· review· en· W2324719142 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueExercise and Sport Sciences Reviews · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersRoyal University Hospital FoundationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationHemiparesisOrthopedic surgerySymmetry (geometry)MedicineAdaptation (eye)Stroke (engine)Physical therapyPsychologyNeuroscienceSurgeryPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief The “restoring symmetry” hypothesis poses that cross-education of strength — a crossed-limb adaptation after unilateral training — is best applied to clinical conditions presenting with asymmetries. Cross-education mechanisms should be viewed as evolutionarily conserved circuits that have a small impact on daily life but a meaningful impact for rehabilitation. Two recently published examples are hemiparesis after stroke and unilateral orthopedic injury. Two recently published clinical studies demonstrate a potential role of cross-education of strength in restoring symmetry after neurological damage or unilateral orthopedic injury.

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)0.004
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.382
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