MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097773785

Supervised by

2006· article· en· W7097773785 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicExercise and Physiological Responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSignificant differencePneumatic actuatorPolyurethaneClosed circuitInflatable
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The biomechanical comparison of a closed cell polyurethane and a traditional pneumatic bicycle road tires were investigated. The study consisted of 4 amateur cyclists and one former professional cyclist who attend the University of Ottawa. The study compared a closed cell polyurethane tire (Flatfree ™ Amerityre tires 700 C x 23mm, replicating ~97 psi) and a traditional pneumatic tire (Vredstein ® Recorso tires 700 C x 23mm) on bicycle rollers. The force required to pedal with the two different tires was recorded through the use of Tekscan F-scan ® Mobile piezo-electric insoles. It was determined that the total difference in force between the pneumatic tire and the Flatfree ™ tires is not found statistically different since P-value> 0.05 for both the series of 10 second sprints and 20 minute endurance trials. This displays that under these conditions the closed cell polyurethane tire does not provide a significant difference in performance when compared to the traditional pneumatic tire.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.257 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExercise and Physiological ResponsesFrench-language works237,207