Three dimensional validation of an instrumented handrail for stair gait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some studies have used load cells (LC) to measure the force applied to horizontal handrails, but no work has validated an inclined set-up that can be used to bring new insights into handrail use during staircase gait. The aim of this study was to validate the accuracy of an inclined handrail set-up instrumented with LC. A handrail set-up designed to be easily reconstructed and integrating two commercial LC is proposed. Twenty points were tested along the handrail, with four reference weights in the three orthogonal directions of the sensors (Medio-Lateral, Antero-Posterior, Vertical). For each direction, the percentage (%) of error and the cross-talk between the known and recorded forces were calculated. A linear regression of the % error was performed to evaluate measurement accuracy in relation to point of application along the handrail. The current easily replicated set-up of an inclined handrail showed accurate measures with low cross-talk. The percentage of error and cross-talk were below 3.7% and 3.7%, respectively, consistent with previous studies evaluating inclined handrail with other methods. The error and cross-talk were greater in the Medio-Lateral and Antero-Posterior directions. The error in the Antero-Posterior direction was larger over the upper part of the handrail.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".