Toe Flexor Forces in Dancers and Non-Dancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Toe flexor force (hallux and second toe) was determined in the right and left feet of 24 dancers and 29 non-dancers (sitting and standing positions) using a commercially-available pressure sensor connected to a voltmeter. For the hallux and second toe combined (all trials combined), average toe flexor force was slightly greater for dancers than non-dancers (dancers, 7 +/- 4 N; non-dancers, 6 +/- 4 N; P<0.049). For dancers and non-dancers combined (all trials), the average toe flexor force of the hallux was more than twice that of the second toe (hallux, 9 +/- 4 N; 2nd toe, 4 +/- 1 N; P<0.0001); average toe flexor force was slightly greater in standing than sitting positions (standing, 7 +/- 4 N; sitting, 6 +/- 3 N; P<0.0001); and the average toe flexor force was slightly greater for the right than left foot (right, 7 +/- 4 N; left, 6 +/- 4 N; P<0.012). The average toe flexor force was greatest for the first repetition and slightly decreased for the second and third repetitions (first repetition, 7 +/- 4 N; second and third repetitions each, 6 +/- 4 N; P<0.0013). Toe flexor force measurement may potentially be applicable to clinical practice as a guide to rehabilitation after injury or as a screening parameter for readiness to advance dance or other athletic training, performance, or competition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".