MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081073384 · doi:10.1152/jn.00360.2020

Fractal analysis of muscle activity patterns during locomotion: pitfalls and how to avoid them

2020· article· en· W3081073384 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTime Series Analysis and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftGovernment of Canada
KeywordsFractal analysisNeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer sciencePsychologyFractalCommunicationFractal dimensionMathematicsMedicineMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the lack of consensus on how to perform fractal analysis of physiological time series, many studies rely on this technique. Here, we shed light on the potential pitfalls of using the Higuchi's fractal dimension and the Hurst exponent. We expose and suggest how to solve the drawbacks of such methods when applied to data from normal and perturbed locomotion by combining in vivo recordings and computational approaches.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.199 · 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