Digital Twin Coaching for Physical Activities: A Survey
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
Digital Twin technology has been rising in popularity thanks to the popularity of machine learning in the last decade. As the life expectancy of people around the world is increasing, so is the focus on physical activity to remain healthy especially in the current times where people are staying sedentary while in quarantine. This article aims to provide a survey on the field of Digital Twin technology focusing on machine learning and coaching techniques as they have not been explored yet. We also define what Digital Twin Coaching is and categorize the work done so far in terms of the objective of the physical activity. We also list common Digital Twin Coaching characteristics found in the articles reviewed in terms of concepts such as interactivity, privacy and security and also detail future perspectives in multimodal interaction and standardization, to name a few, that can guide researchers if they choose to work in this field. Finally, we provide a diagram for the Digital Twin Ecosystem showing the interaction between relevant entities and the information flow as well as an idealization of an ideal Digital Twin Ecosystem for team sports' athlete tracking.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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