MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335207707 · doi:10.1504/ijhfms.2015.075359

Using Peak Vicon data to drive Classic JACK animation for the comparison of low back loads experienced during para-rowing

2015· article· en· W2335207707 on OpenAlexaff
Bradley Cutler, Thomas Merritt, Tammy Eger, Alison Godwin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Human Factors Modelling and Simulation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRowingAnimationAeronauticsComputer scienceComputer graphics (images)SimulationEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of kinematic data collected from subjects in a Vicon laboratory can be used to generate human motion within the Classic JACK simulation environment. This feature is primarily used in the ergonomic design of equipment that the human must interact with. In this case, the research was evaluating the estimated low-back joint force while rowing in one of three para-rowing setups. This paper describes the method by which Vicon data were recorded, smoothed, imported and applied to the JACK manikin to produce realistic rowing animations. It also describes how the kinetic information from a load cell placed in-line with the ergometer chain was recorded, conditioned and applied to the virtual hands of the JACK manikin to improve the force estimates of the lower back. The low back compressive forces estimated by the Classic JACK program are compared to the NIOSH occupational limits as a point of reference. Findings suggest that males, but not females, rowing in the trunk and arms category were significantly above the NIOSH action limit. Females rowing in the arm and shoulder category were significantly below the NIOSH action limit. Future work will evaluate how design features of the para-rowing setup might be altered to reduce joint loading.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.386
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.068 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Human Factors Modelling and SimulationSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207