STEPPING RESPONSE DURING CONSTRAINED AND UNCONSTRAINED STANDING IN MOVING ENVIRONMENTS
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the differences in human stepping response reaction between constrained and unconstrained standing while being exposed to simulated wave-induced platform motions. Twenty subjects (10 male and 10 female), with limited experience recreating or working in motion-rich environments, performed a constrained and an unconstrained standing task on a six-degrees-of-freedom motion bed while being exposed to two different simulated platform motion conditions. Stepping occurrence was greater during unconstrained standing than constrained standing during all three motion conditions. However, no significant differences in platform kinematics were found between stepping cases. These results suggest that stepping occurs more frequently than originally hypothesized. As such, stepping should not be considered as a last resource when all fixed-support options have been exhausted. This should be taken into consideration to ensure ecological validity when developing models to predict stepping occurrence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it