ANÁLISE DO MEDO DE CAIR EM IDOSAS PRATICANTES DE EXERCÍCIOS FÍSICOS ESEDENTÁRIAS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence of falls is high in elderly and the fear of falls is between the universal occurences of falls in this population. In this sense, the study has by objective evaluate the balance and the fear of falls in elderly woman participants of physical activity and sedentaries. Were evaluated 30 ederly of feminine sex divided into two groups: therapeutic exercise and sedentarism. All groups were evaluated using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Falls Efficacy Scale (FES-I-Brasil) and Tinetti Balance Scale. The results showed significative difference on fear of falls (20.09±3.7 vs 37.72±8.7; p=0.000), balance and march (27.77±0.5 vs 18.40±3.9; p<0.000) in favor to active elderly woman. For the variables age (68.04±5.3 vs 72.54±8.4; p=0.04) and cognition (28.31±1.5 vs 24.45±1.8; p=0.44), significative diferences were not observed. At this form, we conclude that physically active elderly woman presented less preocupation with the possibility of falls and better balance levels.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".