Children's strategies in drop-landing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Landing is a critical motor skill included in many activities performed in the natural environment by young children. Yet, landing is critically relevance to ensure proper stability and reduce injury. Furthermore, landing is an integral part of many fundamental motor skills which have been linked to greater physical activity, sport participation, and perceived competence in children. Our aim was to examine the drop-landing strategies of young children focusing on the lower extremity with a multi-variant approach. Methods: Forty-four children divided into four age groups (G1:3-4.5 y, G2:4.5-6 y, G3:6-7.5 y, G4:7.5-9 y) performed 20 drop-land trials in four different conditions: predictable stationary landing, running to the left, to the right, and stay in place. Fifteen reflective markers, two force plates, and ten surface electromyography (sEMG) sensors were used to collect data. MANOVAs (Group x Condition) were conducted separately for the kinematic, kinetic, and sEMG variables. Results: = 0.012), suggesting that younger groups (G1, G2) differed to the older groups (G3, G4). G1 showed less knee flexion and slower ankle dorsi-flexion during the braking phase compared to G3, while G2 presented smaller ankle dorsi-flexion at the braking phase and smaller ankle range of motion than G3. Overall kinetic variables analysis showed a group difference but no group differences for any single kinetic variable alone was found. Regarding sEMG, G1 during the flight phase exhibited longer tibialis anterior and hamstrings activity than G3 and G3 & G4, respectively; and an earlier start of the hamstrings' impact burst than G4. In addition, distal to proximal control was primarily used by all groups to coordinate muscle activity (in response to impact) and joint motion (after impact). Discussion: Perhaps a developmental critical point in landing performance exists at 4-5 years of age since G1 presented the largest differences among the groups. This suggests that to improve landing strategies could start around this age. Future studies should examine if playground environments that include equipment conducive to landing and practitioners in the kindergarten schools are adequate vehicles to empower this type of intervention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".