MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964204436 · doi:10.1109/isie.2006.295530

Automatic filtering techniques for three-dimensional kinematics data using 3D motion capture system

2006· article· en· W1964204436 on OpenAlexaff
Rachid Aïssaoui, S. Husse, Hacene Mecheri, Gérald Parent, Jacques A. de Guise

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSIGNAL (programming language)AlgorithmBandwidth (computing)Computer scienceNoise (video)Singular value decompositionKinematicsMathematicsArtificial intelligencePhysicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the performance of three algorithms for automatic filtering of 3D displacement data. The first approach is based on power spectrum analysis of signal with auto regressive modeling approach to detect a signal bandwidth in the frequency domain. The second method uses the autocorrelation of the residual signal between filtered and unfiltered data to separate the signal bandwidth from noise. The third approach uses a singular spectrum analysis to detect the variance of the signal and reject the noise based on the eigenvalue decomposition of the signal. Overall, the highest RMS value of 0.480 m/s2was measured in the X direction for PSA method, whereas the lowest RMS value of 0.162 m/s2was recorded for cluster 2 for SSA method. This represents a gain of 3 in accuracy in estimating higher-order derivatives such as linear acceleration of rigid body motion. SSA method is robust and seems to behave well for different signal combinations

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207