Implementing Machine Learning Algorithms to Classify Postures and Forecast Motions When Using a Dynamic Chair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many modern jobs require long periods of sitting on a chair that may result in serious health complications. Dynamic chairs are proposed as alternatives to the traditional sitting chairs; however, previous studies have suggested that most users are not aware of their postures and do not take advantage of the increased range of motion offered by the dynamic chairs. Building a system that identifies users' postures in real time, as well as forecasts the next few postures, can bring awareness to the sitting behavior of each user. In this study, machine learning algorithms have been implemented to automatically classify users' postures and forecast their next motions. The random forest, gradient decision tree, and support vector machine algorithms were used to classify postures. The evaluation of the trained classifiers indicated that they could successfully identify users' postures with an accuracy above 90%. The algorithm can provide users with an accurate report of their sitting habits. A 1D-convolutional-LSTM network has also been implemented to forecast users' future postures based on their previous motions, the model can forecast a user's motions with high accuracy (97%). The ability of the algorithm to forecast future postures could be used to suggest alternative postures as needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".