MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990122812 · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-54271-2

Mechanics of very slow human walking

2019· article· en· W2990122812 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Locomotion and Control
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersFP7 Information and Communication TechnologiesEuropean Commission
KeywordsComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human walking speeds can be influenced by multiple factors, from energetic considerations to the time to reach a destination. Neurological deficits or lower-limb injuries can lead to slower walking speeds, and the recovery of able-bodied gait speed and behavior from impaired gait is considered an important rehabilitation goal. Because gait studies are typically performed at faster speeds, little normative data exists for very slow speeds (less than 0.6 ms[Formula: see text]). The purpose of our study was to investigate healthy gait mechanics at extremely slow walking speeds. We recorded kinematic and kinetic data from eight adult subjects walking at four slow speeds from 0.1 ms[Formula: see text] to 0.6 ms[Formula: see text] and at their self-selected speed. We found that known relations for spatiotemporal and work measures are still valid at very slow speeds. Trends derived from slow speeds largely provided reasonable estimates of gait measures at self-selected speeds. Our study helps enable valuable comparisons between able-bodied and impaired gait, including which pathological behaviors can be attributed to slow speeds and which to gait deficits. We also provide a slow walking dataset, which may serve as normative data for clinical evaluations and gait rehabilitative devices.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.194 · 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