Side-sloped surfaces substantially affect lower limb running kinematics
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Running on side-sloped surfaces is a common obstacle in the environment; however, how and to what extent the lower extremity kinematics adapt is not well known. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of side-sloped surfaces on three-dimensional kinematics of hip, knee, and ankle during stance phase of running. Ten healthy adult males ran barefoot along an inclinable runway in level (0°) and side-sloped (10° up-slope and down-slope inclinations, respectively) configurations. Right hip, knee, and ankle angles along with their time of occurrence were analysed using repeated measures MANOVA. Up-slope hip was more adducted (p = 0.015) and internally rotated (p = 0.030). Knee had greater external rotations during side-sloped running at heel-strike (p = 0.005), while at toe-off, it rotated externally and internally during up-slope and down-slope running, respectively (p = 0.001). Down-slope ankle had greatest plantar flexion (p = 0.001). Up-slope ankle had greatest eversion compared with down-slope (p = 0.043), while it was more externally rotated (p = 0.030). These motion patterns are necessary to adjust the lower extremity length during side-sloped running. Timing differences in the kinematic events of hip adduction and external rotation, and ankle eversion were observed (p = 0.006). Knowledge on these alterations is a valuable tool in adopting strategies to enhance performance while preventing 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it