MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158995924 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.8787

7. Frontal Plane Knee Loading during Bodyweight Squat Performance: Effects of Stance Width and Foot Rotation

2016· article· en· W3158995924 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSquatRepeated measures designCoronal planePhysical medicine and rehabilitationFoot (prosody)MathematicsInverse dynamicsMedicineKnee JointRotation (mathematics)Physical therapyOrthodonticsAnatomyPhysicsGeometryKinematicsSurgeryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bodyweight squat is routinely used for conditioning of the knee musculature. In the performance of this exercise, modifications in the initial standing position may result in altered frontal plane kneel loading, and hence may potentially be used for targeted exercise prescription. The purpose of this study is to quantify the frontal plane mechanical loading on the knee joint whilst performing the bodyweight squat exercise, and to examine the effects of varying stance width and foot rotation angle. Twenty-four participants (14 males) performed 4 randomized sets of 8 repetitions of the body weight resistant squat exercise in the following conditions: 1) Shoulder width (SW) stance with parallel feet; 2) SW stance with feet externally rotated 30°; 3) 140% SW stance with parallel feet, and; 4) 140% SW stance with the feet externally rotated by 30°. The adduction/abduction knee joint moment experienced across conditions was calculated using inverse dynamics procedures. Moment waveforms were subjected to Principal Component (PC) analysis, with 3 PC’s retained based on a 90% trace criteria. Following, a 1-way repeated measures ANOVA and pair wise comparisons were used to discern differences between conditions. Omnibus test results indicate significant differences across conditions for PC1 and PC2 (p<0.01), Post hoc comparisons and waveform interpretation of PC1 extreme scores showed that the magnitude of the adduction moment was higher throughout the movement in the foot rotated conditions vs. the parallel feet conditions in both stance widths (mean Z scores .69 & .65 vs. -.88 & -.45, p<0.01, respectively). For PC2, significant differences were found between the 2 parallel feet conditions and the 2 foot rotated conditions, as well as between the foot conditions in the wide stance squats. PC2 differences were interpreted as phase shift operators. We found that modification of foot rotation slightly alters the magnitude and timing of knee adduction moment component during performance of the body weight squat. The observed magnitude differences are presumably a consequence of alteration in the location of the point of application of the ground reaction force during the initial standing posture. The findings may assist clinicians in exercise prescription decision making.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.243 · 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