Step Length Estimation Using Handheld Inertial Sensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper a novel step length model using a handheld Micro Electrical Mechanical System (MEMS) is presented. It combines the user's step frequency and height with a set of three parameters for estimating step length. The model has been developed and trained using 12 different subjects: six men and six women. For reliable estimation of the step frequency with a handheld device, the frequency content of the handheld sensor's signal is extracted by applying the Short Time Fourier Transform (STFT) independently from the step detection process. The relationship between step and hand frequencies is analyzed for different hand's motions and sensor carrying modes. For this purpose, the frequency content of synchronized signals collected with two sensors placed in the hand and on the foot of a pedestrian has been extracted. Performance of the proposed step length model is assessed with several field tests involving 10 test subjects different from the above 12. The percentages of error over the travelled distance using universal parameters and a set of parameters calibrated for each subject are compared. The fitted solutions show an error between 2.5 and 5% of the travelled distance, which is comparable with that achieved by models proposed in the literature for body fixed sensors only.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".