Generation of Boundary Manikin Anthropometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop 3D digital ‘boundary manikins’ that are representative of the anthropometry of a unique population. These digital manikins can be used by designers to verify and validate that the components of the spacesuit design satisfy the requirements specified in the Human Systems Integration Requirements (HSIR) document. Currently, the HSIR requires the next generation space suit to accommodate the 1st percentile American female to the 99th percentile American male. The manikin anthropometry was derived using two methods: Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Whole Body Posture Based Analysis (WBPBA). PCA is a statistical method for reducing a multidimensional data set by using eigenvectors and eigenvalues. The goal was to create a reduced data set that encapsulates the majority of the variation in the population. WBPBA is a multivariate analytical approach that was developed by the Anthropometry and Biomechanics Facility (ABF) to identify the extremes of a population for a given body posture. WBPBA is a simulation-based method that finds extremes in a population based upon anthropometry and posture; whereas PCA is based solely on anthropometry. Both methods yielded a list of subjects and their anthropometry from a target population; PCA resulted in 20 female and 22 male subjects' anthropometry and WBPBA resulted in 7 subjects' anthropometry representing the extreme subjects in the target population. The subjects' anthropometry was then used to ‘morph’ a baseline digital scan of a person with the same body type to create a 3D digital model that can be used as a tool for designers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".