Der funktionelle Sportschuhparameter „Torsion” in der Laufschuhforschung – ein Literaturüberblick
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the sport shoe area torsion is described as the twisting and decoupling of the rear-, mid- and forefoot along the longitudinal axis of the foot. Studies have shown that running shoes restrict the torsion of the foot and thus they increase the pronation of the foot. Based on the findings, it is recommended to design running shoes, which allow the natural freedom of movement of the foot. The market introduction of the first torsion concept through adidas(R) took place in 1989. Independently of the first market introduction, only one epidemiological study was conducted in the running shoe area. The study should investigate the occurrence of Achilles tendon problems of the athletes running in the new "adidas Torsion(R) shoes". However, further studies quantifying the optimal region of torsionability concerning the reduction of injury incidence are still missing. Newer studies reveal that the criterion torsion only plays a secondary roll regarding the buying decision. Moreover, athletes are not able to perceive torsionability as a discrete functional parameter. It is to register, that several workgroups are dealing intensively with the detailed analysis of the foot movement based on kinematic multi-segment-models. However, scientific as well as popular scientific contributions display that the original idea of the torsion concept is still not completely understood. Hence, the "inverse" characteristic is postulated. The present literature review leads to the deduction that the functional characteristics of the torsion concept are not fully implemented within the running shoe area. This implies the necessity of scientific studies, which investigate the relevance of a functional torsion concept regarding injury prevention based on basic and applied research. Besides, biomechanical studies should analyse systematically the mechanism and the effects of torsion relevant technologies and systems.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".