Improvements in Obstacle Clearance Parameters and Reaction Time Over a Series of Obstacles Revealed After Five Repeated Testing Sessions in Older Adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate obstacle clearance and reaction time parameters when crossing a series of six obstacles in older adults. A second aim was to examine the repeated exposure of this testing protocol once per week for 5 weeks. In total, 10 older adults (five females; age: 67.0 ± 6.9 years) walked onto and over six obstacles of varying heights (range: 100-200 mm) while completing no reaction time, simple reaction time, and choice reaction time tasks once per week for 5 weeks. The highest obstacles elicited the lowest toe clearance, and the first three obstacles revealed smaller heel clearance compared with the last three obstacles. Dual tasking negatively impacted obstacle clearance parameters when information processing demands were high. Longer and less consistent time to completion was observed in Session 1 compared with Sessions 2-5. Finally, improvements in simple reaction time were displayed after Session 2, but choice reaction time gradually improved and did not reach a plateau after repeated testing.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it