Isolating the Unique and Generic Movement Characteristics of Highly Trained Runners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human movement patterns were shown to be as unique to individuals as their fingerprints. However, some movement characteristics are more important than other characteristics for machine learning algorithms to distinguish between individuals. Here, we explored the idea that movement patterns contain unique characteristics that differentiate between individuals and generic characteristics that do not differentiate between individuals. Layer-wise relevance propagation was applied to an artificial neural network that was trained to recognize 20 male triathletes based on their respective movement patterns to derive characteristics of high/low importance for human recognition. The similarity between movement patterns that were defined exclusively through characteristics of high/low importance was then evaluated for all participants in a pairwise fashion. We found that movement patterns of triathletes overlapped minimally when they were defined by variables that were very important for a neural network to distinguish between individuals. The movement patterns overlapped substantially when defined through less important characteristics. We concluded that the unique movement characteristics of elite runners were predominantly sagittal plane movements of the spine and lower extremities during mid-stance and mid-swing, while the generic movement characteristics were sagittal plane movements of the spine during early and late stance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".