Pattern classification of kinematic and kinetic running data to distinguish gender, shod/barefoot and injury groups with feature ranking
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
The identification of differences between groups is often important in biomechanics. This paper presents group classification tasks using kinetic and kinematic data from a prospective running injury study. Groups composed of gender, of shod/barefoot running and of runners who developed patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) during the study, and asymptotic runners were classified. The features computed from the biomechanical data were deliberately chosen to be generic. Therefore, they were suited for different biomechanical measurements and classification tasks without adaptation to the input signals. Feature ranking was applied to reveal the relevance of each feature to the classification task. Data from 80 runners were analysed for gender and shod/barefoot classification, while 12 runners were investigated in the injury classification task. Gender groups could be differentiated with 84.7%, shod/barefoot running with 98.3%, and PFPS with 100% classification rate. For the latter group, one single variable could be identified that alone allowed discrimination.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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