Comparison of Physiotherapeutic Approaches to Treatment of Lateral Ligaments Injuries of Ankle Joint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Author: Tereza Živcová Tutor: Ing. Karolína Šenderová Opponent: Title of bachelor thesis: Comparison of Physiotherapeutic Approaches to Treatment of Lateral Ligament Injuries of Ankle Joint Abstract: This bachelor thesis deals with different physiotherapeutic approaches to treatment of lateral ligament injuries of ankle joint. Concretely, it compares and evaluates the differences between the treatment with long-term fixation and the functional therapy during I. and II. degree of ligament injuries. The thesis is divided into two parts. The theoretical part of study gives basic informations about the ankle joint. It deals with traumatology of soft tissues of the ankle joint especially the mechanism of injury and its classification, diagnostics and advantages and disadvantages between long-term immobilization and functional therapy. The most frequently used methods and physiotherapeutic approaches, which have a great influence on patient's condition are also mentioned here. The section about instability of the ankle joint is included as well. The practical part of study contains a methodology, basic questions, goals from which criteria for selection of the patients arise. There is a questionnaire, which was distributed in the Czech Republic and Canada and two case studies whereas each of them had different...
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".