Quantitative assessment of the accuracy for three interpolation techniques in kinematic analysis of human movement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marker obstruction during human movement analyses requires interpolation to reconstruct missing kinematic data. This investigation quantifies errors associated with three interpolation techniques and varying interpolated durations. Right ulnar styloid kinematics from 13 participants performing manual wheelchair ramp ascent were reconstructed using linear, cubic spline and local coordinate system (LCS) interpolation from 11-90% of one propulsive cycle. Elbow angles (flexion/extension and pronation/supination) were calculated using real and reconstructed kinematics. Reconstructed kinematics produced maximum elbow flexion/extension errors of 37.1 (linear), 23.4 (spline) and 9.3 (LCS) degrees. Reconstruction errors are unavoidable [minimum errors of 6.7 mm (LCS); 0.29 mm (spline); 0.42 mm (linear)], emphasising careful motion capture system setup must be performed to minimise data interpolation. For the observed movement, LCS-based interpolation (average error of 14.3 mm; correlation of 0.976 for elbow flexion/extension) was most suitable for reconstructing durations longer than 200 ms. Spline interpolation was superior for shorter durations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it