Additional file 3 of Towards functionally individualised designed footwear recommendation for overuse injury prevention: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 3: Table 1. Summary of the study characteristics, publication details, population details, data collection protocol, covariates, and biomechanical outcome variables for midsole hardness and cushioning modifications with a detailed description of the footwear studied. Table 2. Summary of the study characteristics, publication details, population details, data collection protocol, covariates, and biomechanical outcome variables for midsole geometrical modifications (heel-toe drop and midsole thickness) with a detailed description of the footwear studied. Table 3. Summary of the study characteristics, publication details, population details, data collection protocol, covariates, and biomechanical outcome variables for postings with a detailed description of the footwear studied. Table 4. Summary of the study characteristics, publication details, population details, data collection protocol, covariates, and biomechanical outcome variables for wedges with a detailed description of the footwear studied. Table 5. Summary of the study characteristics, publication details, population details, data collection protocol, covariates, and biomechanical outcome variables for arch support systems with a detailed description of the footwear studied. Table 6. Summary of the study characteristics, publication details, population details, data collection protocol, covariates, and biomechanical outcome variables for heel flare modifications with a detailed description of the footwear studied. Table 7. Summary of the study characteristics, publication details, population details, data collection protocol, covariates, and biomechanical outcome variables for crash pad with a detailed description of the footwear studied. Table 8. Summary of the study characteristics, publication details, population details, data collection protocol, covariates, and biomechanical outcome variables for rocker modifications with a detailed description of the footwear studied. Table 9. Summary of the study characteristics, publication details, population details, data collection protocol, covariates, and biomechanical outcome variables for flex grooves modificaions with a detailed description of the footwear studied. Table 10. Summary of the study characteristics, publication details, population details, data collection protocol, covariates, and biomechanical outcome variables for longitudinal bending stiffness and flexibility modificaions with a detailed description of the footwear studied. Table 11. Summary of the study characteristics, publication details, population details, data collection protocol, covariates, and biomechanical outcome variables for upper modificaions with a detailed description of the footwear studied. Table 12. Summary of the study characteristics, publication details, population details, data collection protocol, covariates, and biomechanical outcome variables for lacing modificaions with a detailed description of the footwear studied.
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 | 0.008 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.843 | 0.127 |
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".