Estimation of the 3-D center of mass excursion from force-plate data during standing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biomechanical models are used with force-plate information to determine the center of mass (COM) trajectory during standing. They are usually based on simplifying assumptions and are often limited to a single-plane analysis. The objectives of this study were to present a three-dimensional (3-D) model to calculate the excursion of the COM of the human body, validate it and compare its performance to a video-based system during quiet standing and antero-posterior (AP) and medio-lateral (ML) self-imposed oscillations. In addition to the vertical displacements of the COM, the originality of the method lies in eliminating the accelerations terms in the model and their related assumptions. The model was able to estimate closely the COM displacements in quiet standing [a root mean square (RMS) of 0.9 mm or less]. For the self-imposed oscillations, the RMS differences were 6.6 mm in the AP and ML directions and 1.6 mm along the vertical axis. For all three testing conditions, the coefficients of correlation of the COM displacements between the model and the video methods were above 0.8 with the exception of the vertical direction, where the values were more variable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".