Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current training techniques, using human trainers or prerecorded video and audio training routines have a number of limitations, both practical (e.g., expensive personal training, limited feedback with video) and psychological (e.g., reluctance of trainees to perform in front of a group). In an eort to address these limitations, we propose, in our current work, a new approach that utilizes haptics as an additional form of feedback. We developed a prototype, using bending sensors and actuators that we xed on clothing and which were worn by the users. A computer program used to record and control the prototype and an Arduino platform was responsible for the communication between the computer and the sensors/actuators. We evaluated the performance of 10 participants in two types of exercises; static and dynamic. Our preliminary results as well as the reaction of participants to the prototype are promising, indicating that the haptic feedback was helpful in performing the exercises and created a pleasurable experience while using the prototype. This work provides the basis for further investigation of this approach which the authors believe that can address eectively many of the limitations of training in the absence of human trainers.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".