MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327520494 · doi:10.3998/circus.2776

Maximal dynamic forces exerted by acrobats on nine circus apparatuses

2022· article· en· W4327520494 on OpenAlexaff
Marion Cossin, Alice Bergeron-Parenteau, Annie Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueCircus Arts Life and Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalNational Circus School
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRopeArtTension (geology)HumanitiesEngineeringStructural engineeringPhysicsCompression (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Circus practice is a very popular activity that has had minimal engineering research published. The purpose of this study was to measure peak cable tension in nine circus disciplines: aerial hoop, rope, aerial silk, flying pole, tightwire, Chinese pole, swinging trapeze, solo and duo fixed trapeze. Cables in these disciplines were instrumented with load cells and tension force was recorded. Thirty-four acrobats, professionals, and students from professional circus schools participated in the study and performed a total of 118 acrobatic movements. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) determined differences in participants. Almost all movements and disciplines showed a statistically significant difference between participants. Maximal forces were found to be 4.8 BW (bodyweight) in aerial hoop, 7.3 BW in aerial rope, 5.6 BW in aerial silk, 4.0 BW in flying pole, 5.6 BW in swinging trapeze, 6.8 BW in solo fixed trapeze, 2.5 BW in duo fixed trapeze, and maximal tension in cable were found to be 15 kN in tightwire and 2.8 kN in Chinese pole. These findings may provide substantial implications for acrobatic design and rigging to improve safety of circus equipment. La pratique du cirque est une activité très populaire pour laquelle peu de recherches en ingénierie ont été publiées. L’objectif de cette étude était de mesurer la tension maximale des câbles dans neuf disciplines de cirque: cerceau aérien, corde lisse, tissu aérien, mât pendulaire, fil de fer, mât chinois, trapèze ballant, trapèze fixe solo et duo. Les câbles de ces disciplines ont été instrumentés avec des cellules de charge et la tension a été enregistrée. Trente-quatre acrobates, professionnels et élèves d'écoles de cirque professionnelles, ont participé à l'étude et ont exécuté un total de 118 mouvements acrobatiques. Une analyse de la variance (ANOVA) a déterminé les différences entre participants. Presque tous les mouvements et disciplines ont montré une différence statistiquement significative entre les participants. Les forces maximales ont été trouvées à 4.8 poids corporel en cerceau aérien, 7.3 fois le poids du corps en corde lisse, 5.6 fois le poids du corps en tissu aérien, 4.0 fois le poids du corps en mât pendulaire, 5.6 fois le poids du corps en trapèze ballant, 6.8 fois le poids du corps en trapèze fixe solo et 2.5 fois le poids du corps en trapèze fixe duo, et la tension maximale dans le câble a été trouvée à 15 kN dans le fil de fer et 2.8 kN dans le mât chinois. Ces résultats peuvent avoir des implications importantes pour la conception et le gréage acrobatique afin d'améliorer la sécurité des équipements de cirque.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCircus Arts Life and SciencesSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207