Comparison of two methods in the estimation of vertical jump height
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
Vertical jumps are vital aspects in many sports. Many technologies are available to determine and calculate jump height. One such portable and easy-to-use technology is an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) that uses accelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometers. The purpose of this study was to compare vertical jump heights calculated from the data captured with an IMU versus true jump height calculated using a gold standard 3-Dimensional Motion Capture system. Ten subjects completed five jumps for six different conditions including vertical counter-movement jumps and jumps involving rotations on the ground and using a trampoline. An average Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.87 was found between the IMU and motion capture for all conditions. Condition correlations ranged from 0.76 to 0.94. Bland-Altman analyses showed that the IMU underestimated the vertical jump height compared to the motion capture by 5.0 to 9.2 cm across all conditions. Results suggest an IMU can be used to measure jump height in a laboratory setting with a reasonable accuracy, even during vertical jumps that include rotations.
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