The Effect of Stance Width and Anthropometrics on Joint Range of Motion in the Lower Extremities during a Back Squat
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 assess whether changing the stance width has an effect on the range of motion of hip flexion, knee flexion, and ankle dorsiflexion during an unloaded back squat, and whether these joint movements are affected by anthropometric differences. Thirty-two healthy, young adults performed unloaded back squats at three different stance widths, normalized to pelvic width. Joint angles were assessed using electromagnetic motion capture sensors on the sacrum, and thigh, shank and foot of the dominant leg. ANOVA comparison of joint angles for the three stance widths, at 10° intervals of thigh orientation during the squat, indicated that joint angles tended to be larger when stance width was narrower, with the most significant effects on ankle dorsiflexion. A greater trunk/thigh length ratio (relatively long trunk) also tended to be associated with lower ankle and knee angles, while a greater thigh/shank length ratio (relatively long thigh) tended to be associated with higher ankle and knee angles, for the two narrower stance widths. The most practical implication of our findings is that individuals with limited ankle dorsiflexion, or with particularly long legs / thighs, may benefit from a wider stance width when squatting.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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