PHYSICAL ASSESSMENT IN SURFERS: GUIDELINES FOR HEALTH PROFESSIONALS - PART 1 UPPER QUARTER
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brazil, surfing has gained popularity in recent decades, driven by beautiful beaches, good wave conditions and the spirit of adventure that permeates Brazilian culture, but also increasing the risk of injuries. During surfing, the surfer spends most of the time lying prone on the board while paddling, placing heavy demands on the musculoskeletal system in the cervical and lumbar spine, as well as in the shoulder region, which are important points for complaints of chronic injuries among surfers. The objective of the present study was to update musculoskeletal assessment of the upper quarter, related to physical examination and functional tests that can be applied to surfers. This is an update study based on an integrative review through a bibliographical survey in which national and international journals indexed in the scientific databases Scielo and PubMed were evaluated, developed and analyzed by a group of experts in the area of surf medicine and health composed of physical educator, physiotherapists and sports doctors. This guideline study compiled important information regarding the prevalence of upper quarter musculoskeletal injuries in surfers, guiding the surfer's outpatient assessment, considering the specificity of the sport and biomechanical gesture involved.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it