Effects of running experience on coordination and its variability in runners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in coordination variability in running gait between trained runners and non-runners using continuous relative phase (CRP) analysis. Lower extremity kinematic data were collected for 22 participants during the stance phase. The participants were assigned to either a runner or non-runner group based on running volume training. Segment coordination and coordination variability were calculated for selected hip-knee and knee-ankle couplings. Independent t-tests and magnitude-based inferences were used to compare the 2 groups. There were limited differences in the CRP and its variability among runners and non-runner groups. The runners group achieved moderately lower coordination compared with non-runners group in the phase angle for hip abduction/adduction and knee flexion/extension. The runners tended to show moderately lower coordination variability in the phase angle for knee flexion/extension and subtalar inversion/eversion in comparison to non-runners group. These results suggested that levels of experience as estimated from weekly training volume had little influence on coordination and its variability.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".