Are Existing Monocular Computer Vision-Based 3D Motion Capture Approaches Ready for Deployment? A Methodological Study on the Example of Alpine Skiing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we compared a monocular computer vision (MCV)-based approach with the golden standard for collecting kinematic data on ski tracks (i.e., video-based stereophotogrammetry) and assessed its deployment readiness for answering applied research questions in the context of alpine skiing. The investigated MCV-based approach predicted the three-dimensional human pose and ski orientation based on the image data from a single camera. The data set used for training and testing the underlying deep nets originated from a field experiment with six competitive alpine skiers. The normalized mean per joint position error of the MVC-based approach was found to be 0.08 ± 0.01 m. Knee flexion showed an accuracy and precision (in parenthesis) of 0.4 ± 7.1° (7.2 ± 1.5°) for the outside leg, and −0.2 ± 5.0° (6.7 ± 1.1°) for the inside leg. For hip flexion, the corresponding values were −0.4 ± 6.1° (4.4° ± 1.5°) and −0.7 ± 4.7° (3.7 ± 1.0°), respectively. The accuracy and precision of skiing-related metrics were revealed to be 0.03 ± 0.01 m (0.01 ± 0.00 m) for relative center of mass position, −0.1 ± 3.8° (3.4 ± 0.9) for lean angle, 0.01 ± 0.03 m (0.02 ± 0.01 m) for center of mass to outside ankle distance, 0.01 ± 0.05 m (0.03 ± 0.01 m) for fore/aft position, and 0.00 ± 0.01 m2 (0.01 ± 0.00 m2) for drag area. Such magnitudes can be considered acceptable for detecting relevant differences in the context of alpine skiing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".