MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Mechanics of Regaining Balance in Pirouettes

2012· article· en· W25275707 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Melanie Lott

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in HIV and AIDS · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBalance (ability)EpistemologyPhilosophyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All forms of dance incorporate examples of the human body in motion or standing in an aesthetically appealing pose. While balancing in a static position, dancers make small adjustments to avoid toppling. Balancing when the body is rotating around a vertical axis with one supporting foot at the floor (a pirouette) is more complex. Dancers are often taught to perform pirouettes by beginning the movement as close to balanced as possible and holding the body rigid throughout the turn. Theoretically, if the body is initially perfectly balanced, the number of revolutions will be limited only by friction. However, the research reported here demonstrates that dancers who perform pirouettes without making adjustments to correct for loss of balance will likely be unable to complete more than a two or three turn pirouette. The topple angle (θ) as function of time was predicted for a model of a rigid body dancer. When θ becomes large enough, dancers must compensate for loss of balance or end the turn. That limiting angle was determined experimentally and set as the upper limit to θ. It was found that performing more than a three-turn, rigid-body pirouette requires the dancer to begin unreasonably close to perfectly balanced (θ<0.1°). To successfully perform more than a three turn pirouette, dancers must employ one of three strategies for regaining balance: (1) Return the center of mass (CM) to a location vertically above the supporting foot (SF), which requires a horizontal force on the body from the floor; (2) Hop the SF to a position vertically under the CM, which compromises the aesthetic of the movement; or (3) slide the SF under the CM, which moves the area of support and produces a horizontal force to move the CM to a revised location. An experimental analysis of dancers’ pirouettes was performed in order to determine what adjustment mechanisms were successfully employed to regain balance. Sliding the SF was the most common and effective technique used by advanced dancers. The SF slides were accompanied by a decrease in normal force, so the instruction to “lift” when performing a pirouette may be useful.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in HIV and AIDSSame topicStructural Engineering and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207