Bibliographic record
Abstract
1128 PURPOSE: To study the number of sessions required for a novice investigator (NI) to proficiently evoke an H-reflex in the flexor carpi radialis, compared to an experienced investigator (EI). METHODS: Thirty-one volunteers underwent 5 test sessions. The first 4 sessions were completed by one tester and the fifth by the second tester. In each session, ten responses of both the maximal M-wave (Mmax) and the H-reflex at a stimulus intensity corresponding to 5% of Mmax (H5%) were recorded. The amplitude and latency measures used for analysis were obtained by both testers on their first session with the same subject. RESULTS: There was a strong correlation between testers for Mmax (r = .89) and H5% (r = .70). The latency measure between testers had a low correlation (r = .38). The difference in latency between the two testers exhibited a quadratic decrease with NI practice. The plateau remained under 1-msec after subject 25. CONCLUSIONS: The peak-to-peak amplitudes of the H-reflex and M-wave do not appear to be influenced by the level of experience of the tester. The latency of the response, however, appears to have an associated learning curve. Amplitude measures require little practice to obtain accurate results. If the measure of interest is latency, a novice investigator requires approximately 50 practice sessions to be confident in the results. Supported by NSERC
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".