MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159785146 · doi:10.1093/biomet/ass020

On the estimation of an average rigid body motion

2012· article· en· W2159785146 on OpenAlexafffund
Karim Oualkacha, Louis‐Paul Rivest

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrika · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiostatisticsLibrary scienceEstimationMathematicsStatisticsArt historyDemographyEpidemiologyHistorySociologyMedicineComputer scienceManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the definition and the estimation of the Fréchet mean of a random rigid body motion in ℝp. The sample space SE(p) contains objects M=(R,t) where R is a p×p rotation matrix and t is a p×1 translation vector. This work is motivated by applications in biomechanics where the posture of a joint at a given time is expressed as M∈SE(3), the rigid body displacement needed to map a system of axes on one segment of the joint to a similar system on the other segment. This posture can also be reported as M−1=(RT,−RTt) by interchanging the role of the two segments. Several definitions of a Fréchet mean for a random motion are proposed using weighted least squares distances. A special emphasis is given to a Fréchet mean that is equivariant with respect to the inverse transform; this means that if P is the Fréchet mean for M then P−1 is the Fréchet mean for M−1, where M is a random SE(p) object. The sampling properties of moment estimators of the Fréchet means are studied in a large concentration setting, where the scatter of the random Ms around their mean value P is small, and as the sample size goes to ∞. Some simple exponential family models for SE(p) data that generalize Downs’ (1972) Fisher–von Mises matrix distribution for rotation matrices are introduced and the least squares mean values for these distributions are calculated. Asymptotic comparisons between the estimators presented in this work are carried out for a particular model when p=2. A numerical example involving the motion of the ankle is presented to illustrate the methodology.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometrikaSame topicVeterinary Equine Medical ResearchFrench-language works237,207