A multi-sensor human gait dataset captured through an optical system and inertial measurement units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different technologies can acquire data for gait analysis, such as optical systems and inertial measurement units (IMUs). Each technology has its drawbacks and advantages, fitting best to particular applications. The presented multi-sensor human gait dataset comprises synchronized inertial and optical motion data from 25 participants free of lower-limb injuries, aged between 18 and 47 years. A smartphone and a custom micro-controlled device with an IMU were attached to one of the participant's legs to capture accelerometer and gyroscope data, and 42 reflexive markers were taped over the whole body to record three-dimensional trajectories. The trajectories and inertial measurements were simultaneously recorded and synchronized. Participants were instructed to walk on a straight-level walkway at their normal pace. Ten trials for each participant were recorded and pre-processed in each of two sessions, performed on different days. This dataset supports the comparison of gait parameters and properties of inertial and optical capture systems, whereas allows the study of gait characteristics specific for each system.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".