MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135343909 · doi:10.12678/1089-313x.031521h

An Updated Systematic Review of Turnout Position Assessment Protocols Used in Dance Medicine and Science Research

2021· review· en· W3135343909 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Manuela Angioi, Karis Hodgson, Katrine Okholm Kryger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dance Medicine & Science · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDiversity and Impact of Dance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurnoutCINAHLDancePopulationProtocol (science)Physical therapyMedicinePsychologyPolitical scienceAlternative medicinePsychological interventionArtNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Turnout, or external rotation of the lower limbs, is an integral part of classical ballet technique. Contributions of lower limb structures to turnout can be separated into HER (hip external rotation) and NHCTO (non-hip contributions to turnout). This study aimed to review systematically methods used to measure turnout in dance medicine and science research, thereby updating the literature since the Champion and Chatfield review of 2008. CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched in January 2018 by two independent reviewers. Peer-reviewed studies measuring turnout in dance were included, except those published prior to March 23, 2006, as that was the last date of publication included in the previous review. Abstracts, theses, and editorials were excluded. From each study, study design, population (sample size, sex, age, genre of dance, and level of training), details of the protocol used, and result of turnout measurement were extracted, as well as reliability data. All included studies were assessed for risk of bias, using either Newcastle-Ottawa scale, AXIS tool, or PEDro scale as appropriate for each study design. A total of 41 studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-eight studies measured HER, nine measured NCHTO, and 22 measured total turnout (TTO). An increased number of studies investigated TTO (N = 22; N = 4 passive TTO) and NHCTO (N = 9) since 2006. All studies scored above half the points attainable from their respective tools. Results suggest HER remains the most common protocol for measuring turnout (N = 28), despite the fact it disregards input from structures below the hip. It is concluded that researchers should focus on quality of reporting of protocols to ensure repeatability and facilitate comparison of results. Future studies should include absolute reliability and validity testing of all currently used protocols so that standardization can be fully achieved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.194
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.194
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.010
Bibliometrics0.0290.024
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.579
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dance Medicine & ScienceSame topicDiversity and Impact of DanceFrench-language works237,207