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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
David C. Kingston

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207