MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3169970722 · doi:10.36950/ciss_2019.001

Response to select comments on the proposed paradigm shifts in running

2021· article· en· W3169970722 on OpenAlex
Benno M. Nigg, M. Mohr, Sandro Nigg

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Issues in Sport Science (CISS) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceField (mathematics)Movement (music)Path (computing)Control (management)Human–computer interactionPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationArtificial intelligenceMedicineAestheticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Six experts in the field of running-related research have critically addressed a proposal to abandon the paradigms of ‘impact force’ and ‘pronation control’ when investigating running shoes, running injury, and running performance. Further, these experts have commented on the suggestion of the new paradigms of ‘muscle tuning’ and the ‘preferred movement path’ that can be used to investigate questions related to running injuries and performance as well running shoe design and comfort. This publication synthesizes and addresses the main criticisms of the experts and describes future directions to further develop the ‘muscle tuning and ‘preferred movement’ paradigms.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.277 · 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