MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108692063 · doi:10.3390/s20236883

Deep Neural Network for Slip Detection on Ice Surface

2020· article· en· W3108692063 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kent Wu, Suzy He, Geoff Fernie, Atena Roshan Fekr

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersRenewable Energy Research Center, University of Dhaka
KeywordsSlip (aerodynamics)Convolutional neural networkArtificial neural networkComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineeringStructural engineeringSimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Slip-induced falls are among the most common causes of major occupational injuries and economic loss in Canada. Identifying the risk factors associated with slip events is key to developing preventive solutions to reduce falls. One factor is the slip-resistance quality of footwear, which is fundamental to reducing the number of falls. Measuring footwear slip resistance with the recently developed Maximum Achievable Angle (MAA) test requires a trained researcher to identify slip events in a simulated winter environment. The human capacity for information processing is limited and human error is natural, especially in a cold environment. Therefore, to remove conflicts associated with human errors, in this paper a deep three-dimensional convolutional neural network is proposed to detect the slips in real-time. The model has been trained by a new dataset that includes data from 18 different participants with various clothing, footwear, walking directions, inclined angles, and surface types. The model was evaluated on three types of slips: Maxi-slip, midi-slip, and mini-slip. This classification is based on the slip perception and recovery of the participants. The model was evaluated based on both 5-fold and Leave-One-Subject-Out (LOSO) cross validation. The best accuracy of 97% was achieved when identifying the maxi-slips. The minimum accuracy of 77% was achieved when classifying the no-slip and mini-slip trials. The overall slip detection accuracy was 86% with sensitivity and specificity of 81% and 91%, respectively. The overall accuracy dropped by about 2% in LOSO cross validation. The proposed slip detection algorithm is not only beneficial for footwear manufactures to improve their footwear slip resistance quality, but it also has other potential applications, such as improving the slip resistance properties of flooring in healthcare facilities, commercial kitchens, and oil drilling platforms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207