State Space Methods and Examples for Computational Models of Human Movement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>In the past, multi-rigid-body systems have been formulated by Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics, the Newton-Euler method and Kane’s dynamic equations. Availability of large computers and versatile software systems enables us to formulate larger systems and analyze them computationally. In such circumstances, the probability of human error grows with the size of the system. The purpose of this work is to provide state space formulations that allow verification of computational results and be able to transport Lyapunov stability results across the these dynamics disciplines. The formulations are presented with matrices for all transformations and projections.</p><p>This work also investigates the constraint forces and their computation or elimination by different methods. A one-link constrained rigid body is considered first. The results are summarily extended to a three-link system. Six three-link rigid body sub modules are interconnected to describe, control and simulate many different maneuvers and activities of humans.</p><p>The actuators have alpha and gamma inputs, and pull but cannot push. The control strategy is based on Evarts’ “attention set,”, and is applied to the movement of one arm in a computational experiment.</p>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it