Development of a Core Stability Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of core stability has transcended physical medicine as well as health and physical performance. It is now considered a fundamental component of general fitness and rehabilitation programming. However, the definition of core stability, its components, and the assessment techniques have not been established. The purpose of this project was to develop a comprehensive core stability model addressing its definition, components, and assessment techniques. The methods utilized in this study incorporated the Delphi technique to develop a unified core stability model. A group of 15 content experts from United States and Canada, representing a variety of disciplines, participated in this study. An open-ended questionnaire pertaining to a core stability definition, components, and specific assessment techniques was distributed to each expert. Data was collected over two rounds of telephone interviews. In round one, the data in the form of feedback from each expert was collected. Round two consisted of a second telephone interview to gather any changes the experts made to their initial responses. Data collection was concluded once a consensus was achieved. A working definition of core stability was developed as "the ability to achieve and sustain control of the trunk region at rest and during precise movement" after the first round. Eighty-three percent of the experts considered the definition satisfactory. Therefore, the definition was accepted. A consensus was also achieved for the components of core stability. Muscles and neuromuscular control were identified by over 51 percent of the experts. Consistently identified muscles were the transversus abdominis, internal oblique, external oblique, rectus abdominis, and multifidus. Assessment techniques were identified and inconsistencies were highlighted, however no consensus was established. In conclusion, a consensus core stability definition was created and its components were identified. However, of the initial definitions provided by the experts, no two were identical, which revealed the inconsistencies among experts and the importance of this study. Nonetheless, the goal of obtaining a consensus definition was obtained. Although a consensus for the assessment techniques of core stability could not be reached, it was a beneficial starting point to identify the inconsistencies that were discovered among the content experts.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".