Reliability of isovelocity dynamometer testing of four movements of the shoulder and shoulder girdle in persons with spinal cord injury
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
The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability of using an isovelocity dynamometer for the testing of four movements of the shoulder and shoulder girdle in participants having a spinal cord injury. Ten people with quadriplegia and ten people with paraplegia participated in the study. The movements being tested included shoulder girdle (scapular) elevation and depression, and shoulder (glenohumeral joint) flexion and adduction. Scapular movements were tested using a standardised reciprocal protocol at an angular velocity of 30/s, while glenohumeral movements were tested using a standardised protocol at an angular velocity of 60/s. Testing was conducted on two days separated by no less than 72 hours, but no more than one week. Data analysis showed high reliability for all tested movements with intraclass correlation values greater than 0.9, and r2 values greater than 0.76. The protocol and the isovelocity dynamometer used is a reliable means to assess force generated in these movements by participants with spinal cord injuries.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it