Validity of a portable force platform for assessing biomechanical parameters in three different tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the precision and accuracy of the vertical and anterior-posterior force components of the portable PASCO PS-2142 force plate. Impulse, peak force, and time to peak force were assessed and compared to a gold standard force plate in three different tasks: vertical jump, forward jump, and sprint start. Two healthy male participants performed ten trials for each task, resulting in 60 trials. Data analyses revealed good precision and accuracy for the vertical component of the portable force plate, with relative bias and root mean square (RMS) error values nearly the same in all tasks for the impulse, time to peak force, and peak force parameters. Precision and accuracy of the anterior-posterior component were lower for the impulse and time to peak force, with relative bias and RMS error values nearly the same between tasks. Despite the lower precision and accuracy of the anterior-posterior component of the portable force plate, these errors were systematic, reflecting a good repeatability of the measure. In addition, all variables presented good agreement between the portable and gold standard platforms. Our results provide a good perspective for using the aforementioned portable force plate in sports and clinical biomechanics.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".