MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602723889

Development and Evaluation of a Sensor System to Monitor the Stance-Phase Control Function of the Automatic Stance-Phase Lock (ASPL) Mechanism

2016· dissertation· en· W2602723889 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jessica Nicole Tomasi

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoBloorview Research Institute
KeywordsGaitPhysical medicine and rehabilitationLock (firearm)Gait analysisMedicineSimulationComputer sciencePhysical therapyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Automatic Stance-Phase Lock is the novel stance-phase control mechanism employed by the All-Terrain Knee. Gait analysis tools are often limited to controlled environments and cannot directly monitor the ASPL. The objective of this project was to design and test a sensor system to measure ASPL function and to begin to explore the effects of relevant alignment, terrain, and mobility conditions on its performance. The results of this study indicate that the developed system is sensitive to knee lock position changes, knee extension and flexion, and gait events. Data collected by the system confirms the fundamental relationships between applied moments and knee lock engagement which define ASPL stance-phase control. Measurable differences in ASPL function allude to its responsiveness to variable gait conditions. The developed system has the proven potential for use in larger biomechanical and clinical studies to inform All-Terrain Knee design iterations and optimize patient-specific prosthetic alignment and set-up.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207