MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1994091754 · doi:10.1109/embc.2012.6347487

A NARMAX method for the identification of time-varying joint stiffness

2012· article· en· W1994091754 on OpenAlexaff
Diego L. Guarín, Robert E. Kearney

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStiffnessControl theory (sociology)Joint (building)Joint stiffnessTorquePosition (finance)Nonlinear systemAnkleReflexComputer sciencePoint (geometry)MathematicsEngineeringStructural engineeringPhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic joint stiffness defines the dynamic relationship between the position of a joint and the torque acting about it and can be separated into intrinsic and reflex components. Under stationary conditions, these can be identified using a nonlinear parallel-cascade algorithm that models intrinsic stiffness and reflex stiffness as parallel pathways. Experimental results demonstrate that both intrinsic and reflex stiffness depend strongly on the operating point defined by mean joint position and the activation level. Consequently, both intrinsic and reflex stiffness will appear to be time-varying (TV) whenever the operating point changes, as during movement. This paper describes and validates a new method for identification of TV ankle stiffness. The method is based on the TV nonlinear autorregresive, moving average exogenous (NARMAX) model class. Simulation results demonstrated that the algorithm can accurately estimate the TV parameters of the ankle stiffness. We conclude that the algorithm is potentially a powerful new tool for the study of joint stiffness during TV conditions.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studies→French-language works237,207→