BIOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT PROSTHETIC TECHNOLOGIES FOR TRANS-FEMORAL AMPUTEES DURING SLOPE DESCENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
 Lower limb amputees have different biomechanics to able-bodied people when walking on slopes1,2, often struggling to negotiate different gradients safely. Loss of proprioception and muscular control contributes to this issue, which is a particular problem for trans-femoral amputees, where both ankle and knee joints are absent. Studies have shown that prosthetic technologies can have benefits for slope negotiation. The aim of this study was to isolate the specific effects of different trans-femoral prosthetic technologies, by applying each additional mechanism incrementally.
 Abstract PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/32012/24431
 How to cite: Stech N, McGrath M, Laszczak P, Kercher A, Zahedi S, Moser D. BIOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT PROSTHETIC TECHNOLOGIES FOR TRANS-FEMORAL AMPUTEES DURING SLOPE DESCENT. 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.v1i2.32012 
 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".