Lower extremity and trunk sagittal plane coordination strategies and kinetic distribution during landing in males and females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Force attenuation during landing requires coordinated motion of the ankle, knee, hip, and trunk, and strategies may differ between sexes. Sagittal plane coordination of the ankle/knee, knee/hip, and knee/trunk, and lower extremity and trunk kinematics and kinetics was compared throughout landing between 28 males and 28 females. Coordination was assessed with a modified vector coding technique and binning analysis. Total support moments (TSM), each joint's percent contribution, and timing of the TSM were compared. Females landed with less isolated knee flexion in the ankle/knee, knee/hip, and knee/trunk couplings, but more simultaneous ankle/knee flexion, less simultaneous knee flexion/hip extension, and more simultaneous trunk/knee flexion. Females landed with larger plantarflexion angles from 0-16% and smaller trunk flexion angles from 0-78%. In females, absolute TSM were larger from 0-6% and smaller from 42-100%, and normalized TSM were larger from 0-8% and 26-42%. Females had greater ankle contribution to the TSM from 14-15% and 29-35%, smaller absolute peak TSM, and the peak TSM occurred earlier. Females compensated for less isolated knee flexion with greater simultaneous ankle/knee flexion early in landing and knee/trunk flexion later in landing. Coordination and TSM differences may influence force attenuation strategies and have implications for knee injury disparity between sexes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".