Prevalência de dor lombar em praticantes de musculação
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O objetivo da pesquisa foi verificar a incidencia de dor lombar em praticantes de musculacao. A amostra foi composta por 40 individuos de ambos os generos, com idade compreendida entre 16 e 50 anos, praticantes de musculacao. Como instrumento utilizou-se o questionario Quebec Pain Disability Scale para Lombalgia e uma ficha de avaliacao individual. Os dados foram analisados pela estatistica descritiva. Entre os resultados observou-se que vinte e sete pesquisados apresentaram dor lombar. As principais atividades que ocasionam a dor foram ficar em pe por 20 – 30 minutos, sentar em uma cadeira por varias horas, caminhar varios quilometros, levantar e carregar uma mala pesada. Conclui-se que 67% dos alunos praticantes de musculacao que foram entrevistados sentem dor lombar e que apesar do desconforto continuam praticando o exercicio fisico sem tratamento medico ou cuidados com determinados exercicios que possuem sobrecarga axial. O exercicio de agachamento com barra foi citado como o causador de maior desconforto na regiao lombar.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".