MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411618211 · doi:10.51847/7rewgyzstw

10.51847/7ReWGYzsTW

2000· article· en· W4411618211 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTime to knit · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare and Venom Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical therapyPhysical fitnessPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of inhibiting factors has led women with back pain to be usually recommended staying in bed rest and be banned especially from sport activities.The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a home therapeutic exercise protocol on physical fitness of women with low back pain.The training program included 2 weeks of practical work and training.Then, with phone supervision and guidance for six weeks and using training CD, patients continued exercises at home.Preliminary tests were repeated every two weeks until the end of the program.Test used included standardized tests of physical fitness.Statistical analysis was done through ANOVA for repeated measures by SPSS software.Statistical analysis showed that for all 6 physical factors, there is a significant interaction in favor of the experimental group.According to the results obtained, it can be concluded that home therapeutic exercise with the protocol presented in this study has been effective on improvement of physical fitness.In total, according to the physical benefits of therapeutic intervention used, this approach can be introduced as a valuable therapeutic way to improve back pain patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.9380.915

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.276 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTime to knitSame topicHealthcare and Venom ResearchFrench-language works237,207