MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2513851577 · doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000001618

Enhancing Digital Video Analysis of Bar Kinematics in Weightlifting: A Case Study

2016· article· en· W2513851577 on OpenAlexaff
Torstein E. Dæhlin, Tron Krosshaug, Loren Z.F. Chiu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftwareSquatKinematicsBar (unit)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionDigital cameraVideo cameraOpen sourceComputer graphics (images)SimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Weightlifting technique can be objectively assessed from two-dimensional video recordings. Despite its importance, participants' bar trajectories in research involving the snatch or clean exercises are often not reported, potentially due to the time required to digitize video. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the use of a light-emitting diode (LED)-based marker, digital video, and open-source software to automatically track the bar end during weightlifting exercises. A former national-level weightlifter was recorded with a digital video camera performing the snatch, clean and jerk, and squat exercises. An LED-based marker was placed on the right end of the bar. This marker was automatically tracked using 2 open-source software programs to obtain vertical and horizontal position coordinates. The LED-based marker was successfully auto-tracked for all videos over a variety of camera settings. Furthermore, the vertical and horizontal bar displacements and vertical bar velocity were consistent between the 2 software programs. This study demonstrates that an LED-based marker can be automatically tracked using open-source software. This combination of an LED-based marker, consumer camera, and open-source software is an accessible, low-cost method to objectively evaluate weightlifting technique.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning ResearchSame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207