MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911316747 · doi:10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.32003

TRANSTIBIAL AMPUTEE GAIT WITH THE PRO-FLEX FOOT DURING LEVEL, DECLINE, AND INCLINE WALKING

2018· article· en· W2911316747 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Matthew Tomkin, Hossein Gholizadeh, Emily H. Sinitski, Edward D. Lemaire

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFLEXOrthoticsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGaitAnklePhysical therapyFoot (prosody)Range of motionKinematicsMedicinePsychologyComputer scienceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION
 The Össur Pro-Flex is a 3-blade carbon fiber prosthetic foot designed to provide greater ankle range of motion compared to conventional energy storing and returning prosthetic feet1,2. To provide knowledge on Pro-Flex biomechanical performance, kinematic and kinetic gait parameters were evaluated and compared with the Össur Pro-Flex XC prosthetic foot. Outcomes from this study provide clinical professionals with important decision-making knowledge about two innovative energy storing and returning prosthetic feet.
 Abstract PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/32003/24424
 How to cite: Tomkin M, Gholizadeh H, Sinitski E, Lemaire E.D. TRANSTIBIAL AMPUTEE GAIT WITH THE PRO-FLEX FOOT DURING LEVEL, DECLINE, AND INCLINE WALKING. CANADIAN PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS JOURNAL, VOLUME 1, ISSUE 2, 2018; ABSTRACT, POSTER PRESENTATION AT THE AOPA’S 101ST NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, SEPT. 26-29, VANCOUVER, CANADA, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.32003 
 Abstracts were Peer-reviewed by the American Orthotic Prosthetic Association (AOPA) 101st National Assembly Scientific Committee. 
 http://www.aopanet.org/

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.196 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics JournalSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207