Running patterns for male and female competitive and recreational runners based on accelerometer data
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
The purpose of this study was to classify runners in sex-specific groups as either competitive or recreational based on center of mass (CoM) accelerations. Forty-one runners participated in the study (25 male and 16 female), and were labeled as competitive or recreational based on age, sex, and race performance. Three-dimensional acceleration data were collected during a 5-minute treadmill run, and 24 features were extracted. Support vector machine classification models were used to examine the utility of the features in discriminating between competitive and recreational runners within each sex-specific subgroup. Competitive and recreational runners could be classified with 82.63 % and 80.4 % in the male and female models, respectively. Dominant features in both models were related to regularity and variability, with competitive runners exhibiting more consistent running gait patterns, but the specific features were slightly different in each sex-specific model. Therefore, it is important to separate runners into sex-specific competitive and recreational subgroups for future running biomechanical studies. In conclusion, we have demonstrated the ability to analyze running biomechanics in competitive and recreational runners using only CoM acceleration patterns. A runner, clinician, or coach may use this information to monitor how running patterns change as a result of training.
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 | 0.001 | 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