MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2749298550

Action strategies when avoiding two vertical obstacles

2011· article· en· W2749298550 on OpenAlexaff
Amy L. Hackney, Daniel Rapoport, Lori Ann Vallis, Michael E. Cinelli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction (physics)PacePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationObstacleSpace (punctuation)Task (project management)Point (geometry)Computer scienceSocial psychologySimulationCognitive psychologyMathematicsPhysicsMedicineGeodesyGeometryEngineeringGeologyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals inherently walk towards open spaces and avoid colliding with obstacles to reduce the risk of injury 1 . Research has demonstrated that young adults use body-scaled information to alter their movements when walking through confined spaces 2,3 . Young adults consistently require a safety margin greater than or equal to 1.3 times their shoulder width (termed Critical Point ) in order to pass through an aperture without changing their actions 2 . It is unknown as to whether individuals maintained similar body-scaled strategies when controlling their actions in situations where they are not obligated to walk through a confined space. The current study was designed to test the action strategies of young adults during an unconfined goal-directed locomotor task. The unconfined space consisted of a vertically oriented goal at the end of a 10m pathway and two vertically oriented obstacles placed half way (i.e. 5m from start) along the pathway on either side of the pathway's midline. The obstacles created an aperture that varied between 0.6-1.8 times each individuals shoulder width, but and allowed individuals to choose one of three possible pathways (middle, or around either obstacle). Individuals were instructed to walk to the goal at a natural pace and in a manner they felt was appropriate for success. No direct instructions were provided as to how to avoid the obstacles. Preliminary results indicate that young adults (N=12) chose to walk around the obstacles when the aperture was less than 1.4 times their shoulder widths (? 2 (7 ) = 58, p The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston: NY. [2] Warren, W.H. and Whang, S. (1989). Visual guidance of walking through apertures: Body- scaled information for affordances. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13: 371- 83. [3] Wilmut, K. and Barnett, A. (2010). Locomotor adjustments when navigating through apertures. HumanMovement Science. 29: 289-98. [4] Wilmut, K. and Barnett, A. (2011). Locomotor behavior of children while navigating through apertures. Experimental Brain Research, 210: 185- 94. [5] Hackney, A.L., & Cinelli, M.E. (2011). Action strategies of older adults when walking through apertures. Gait and Posture. 33 [4]: 733-36.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.214
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.143 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and SportSame topicBehavioral and Psychological StudiesFrench-language works237,207