MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Detection of Gait Patterns in Challenging Environments

2008· book-chapter· en· W187338688 on OpenAlexaff
Kate Lynch, Daniel Lai, Rezaul Begg

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGait Recognition and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccidentalMedicineMedical prescriptionHealth careGerontologyPopulationPopulation ageingRehabilitationFall preventionPublic healthMedical emergencyInjury preventionPoison controlPhysical therapyEnvironmental healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One in three individuals over the age of 65 years (elderly) will fall at least once a year (James, 1993). This probability increases to one in two adults over 80 years (DHA, 2005). Consequently, gait modifications associated with ageing have been linked with increased falls’ probability (Berg, Alessio, Mills, & Tong, 1997; Lord, Sherrington, & Menz, 2001). Despite an increasing research interest in recent times into the aetiology of falls, particularly in the elderly (>65 years), falls continue to be a major public health concern in Australia and worldwide. Fall-related injuries are the leading cause of accidental death in the elderly population, and account for the largest cause of hospitalisation for this population (Lord et al., 2001), with many elderly individuals experiencing physical, social, or functional ramifications following a fall. Consequently, the economic cost of falls to the public health system is escalating, with the total cost of fall injuries reported to be higher than road traffic injuries (DOH, 2004). The majority of falls associated costs include physician consultation, hospital stays, nursing homecare, rehabilitation, medical equipment, home modification and care, community based services, and prescription drugs and administration (DOH, 2004; Lord et al., 2001). Healthcare and related costs associated with falls are expected to double over the next 50 years (Close & Lord, 2006).

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicGait Recognition and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207