MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110997427 · doi:10.1177/1541931214581196

Extraction of Encumbered Anthropometric Measures from Whole-Body Scan Data

2014· article· en· W2110997427 on OpenAlexaff
Monica L. H. Jones, Matthew Lamb, Jen M.V. Shih, Lois A. Sy, Allan Keefe

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClothingAnthropometryWorkspaceComputer scienceBody shapeArtificial intelligenceMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate capture of encumbered anthropometry is critical to ensure that the analysis and design of military platforms and workspaces account for the additional space required for clothing and PPE equipment. To examine the effect of encumbrance on spatial claim, a method was developed to obtain scan-extracted measures from detailed whole-body shape data. This analysis focused on comparing cross-sectional measures extracted from 3D scan data with measurements of the same participants obtained by traditional 1D techniques, while donning different levels of clothing and equipment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal DisordersFrench-language works237,207