MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032125591 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2011.6090939

Detecting changes in human motion using stochastic distance measures

2011· article· en· W2032125591 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Choudry, M. Pillar, Tyson A.C. Beach, Dana Kulić, Jack P. Callaghan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGait Recognition and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetric (unit)Motion (physics)Human motionComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Ranking (information retrieval)Artificial intelligenceHidden Markov modelAccelerationDivergence (linguistics)Degrees of freedom (physics and chemistry)MathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a stochastic framework to analyze and compare differences in human motions for applications in injury prevention, rehabilitation, sports training and performance research. Human motions are modeled as Hidden Markov Models and the differences between the motions are measured using the Kullback-Leibler distance metric. The distance metric is recomputed with degrees of freedom excluded to determine which degree of freedom most influences the difference between a set of motions. The proposed system is tested on a human motion dataset consisting of lifting movements under differing load weights and ankle bracing conditions. Results indicate that the algorithm is capable of successfully determining which joints are impacted and ranking them according to importance.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGait Recognition and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207