Posture Prediction Versus Inverse Kinematics
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
Abstract Inverse kinematics is concerned with the determination of joint variables of a manipulator given its final position or final position and orientation. Posture prediction also refers to the same problem but is typically associated with models of the human limbs, in particular for postures assumed by the torso and upper extremities. There has been numerous works pertaining to the determination and enumeration of inverse kinematic solutions for serial robot manipulators. Part of these works have also been directly extended to the determination of postures for humans, but have rarely addressed the choice of solutions undertaken by humans, but have focused on purely kinematic solutions. In this paper, we present a theoretical framework that is based on cost functions as human performance measures, subsequently predicting postures based on optimizing one or more of such cost functions. This paper seeks to answer two questions: (1) Is a given point reachable (2) If the point is reachable, we shall predict a realistic posture. We believe that the human brain assumes different postures driven by the task to be executed and not only on geometry. Furthermore, because of our optimization approach to the inverse kinematics problem, models with large number of degrees of freedom are addressed. The method is illustrated using several examples.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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