Understanding the Impact of Machine Learning Models on the Performance of Different Flexible Strain Sensor Modalities
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
Fibre strain sensors commonly use three major modalities to transduce strain—piezoresistance, capacitance, and inductance. The electrical signal in response to strain differs between these sensing technologies, having varying sensitivity, maximum measurable loading rate, and susceptibility to deleterious effects like hysteresis and drift. The wide variety of sensor materials and strain tracking applications makes it difficult to choose the best sensor modality for a wearable device when considering signal quality, cost, and difficulty of manufacture. Fibre strain sensor samples employing the three sensing mechanisms are fabricated and subjected to strain using a tensile tester. Their mechanical and electrical properties are measured in response to strain profiles designed to exhibit particular shortcomings of sensor behaviour. Using these data, the sensors are compared to identify materials and sensing technologies well suited for different textile motion tracking applications. Several regression models are trained and validated on random strain pattern data, providing guidance for pairing each sensor with a model architecture that compensates for non-ideal effects. A thermoplastic elastomer-core piezoresistive sensor had the highest sensitivity (average gauge factor: 12.6) and a piezoresistive sensor of similar construction with a polyether urethane-urea core had the largest bandwidth, capable of resolving strain rates above 300% <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="minf1"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mtext>s</mml:mtext><mml:mrow><mml:mo>−</mml:mo><mml:mn>1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math> with 36% signal amplitude attenuation. However, both piezoresistve sensors suffered from larger hysteresis and drift than a coaxial polymer sensor using the capacitive strain sensing mechanism. Machine learning improved the piezoresistive sensors’ root-mean-squared error when tracking a random strain signal by up to 58% while maintaining their high sensitivity, bandwidth, and ease of interfacing electronically.
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 | 0.000 |
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