MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3031204556 · doi:10.1123/ijatt.2019-0074

Balance Error Scoring System Reliability and Validity When Performed With Ice Skates

2020· article· en· W3031204556 on OpenAlexaff
Jason P. Mihalik, Elizabeth F. Teel, Robert C. Lynall, Erin B. Wasserman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Athletic Therapy & Training · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalance (ability)Reliability (semiconductor)PsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In equipment-heavy sports, there is a growing need to evaluate players in the condition in which they participate. However, the psychometric properties of the Balance Error Scoring System (BESS) while wearing skates remains unknown. Seventy-four adolescent male hockey players completed the BESS with and without skates. A subset was reevaluated at the conclusion of the season. The BESS while wearing skates resulted in a mean of 15 more total errors than the traditional administration (t 73 = 14.94, p < .001; ES = 1.95) and demonstrated low test-retest reliability. The BESS should be administered in the traditional manner (without skates).

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Athletic Therapy & TrainingSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207