A database of human gait performance on irregular and uneven surfaces collected by wearable sensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gait analysis has traditionally relied on laborious and lab-based methods. Data from wearable sensors, such as Inertial Measurement Units (IMU), can be analyzed with machine learning to perform gait analysis in real-world environments. This database provides data from thirty participants (fifteen males and fifteen females, 23.5 ± 4.2 years, 169.3 ± 21.5 cm, 70.9 ± 13.9 kg) who wore six IMUs while walking on nine outdoor surfaces with self-selected speed (16.4 ± 4.2 seconds per trial). This is the first publicly available database focused on capturing gait patterns of typical real-world environments, such as grade (up-, down-, and cross-slopes), regularity (paved, uneven stone, grass), and stair negotiation (up and down). As such, the database contains data with only subtle differences between conditions, allowing for the development of robust analysis techniques capable of detecting small, but significant changes in gait mechanics. With analysis code provided, we anticipate that this database will provide a foundation for research that explores machine learning applications for mobile sensing and real-time recognition of subtle gait adaptations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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".