MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893215628 · doi:10.1177/1541931218621185

The evaluation of absolute position drift of inertial-based motion capture systems

2018· article· en· W2893215628 on OpenAlexaff
Adrian de Gouw, Xiaoxu Ji, Joel Cort

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotion capturePosition (finance)Computer scienceInertial frame of referenceComputer visionMotion (physics)SimulationWork (physics)Representation (politics)Artificial intelligenceSoftwareInertial measurement unitTask (project management)EngineeringPhysicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inertial based capture technologies allow for direct capture of motions within a manufacturing environment and, may be used with human simulation software to perform ergonomics analyses. However, these technologies are negatively affected by metal environments where “drift” has been shown to cause error in capture accuracy. Twenty participants completed four multi-task events simulating real work, in a laboratory while instrumented with inertial and optical based motion capture systems. Participants began and ended each event by performing a static T-Pose posture in a known location. Lower-leg 3D position data were extracted and the position difference from the start and end T-Poses were analyzed. Results indicate significant lower-leg position error relative to the starting location of the T-Pose to the end, with the inertial systems as compared to the optical based system. These errors can impact overall accuracy and representation of work within a human modeling environment.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal DisordersFrench-language works237,207