Toward the Personalization of Biceps Fatigue Detection Model for Gym Activity: An Approach to Utilize Wearables’ Data from the Crowd
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, wearables-based Human Activity Recognition (HAR) systems represent a modern, robust, and lightweight solution to monitor athlete performance. However, user data variability is a problem that may hinder the performance of HAR systems, especially the cross-subject HAR models. Such a problem may have a lesser effect on the subject-specific model because it is a tailored model that serves a specific user; hence, data variability is usually low, and performance is often high. However, such a performance comes with a high cost in data collection and processing per user. Therefore, in this work, we present a personalized model that achieves higher performance than the cross-subject model while maintaining a lower data cost than the subject-specific model. Our personalization approach sources data from the crowd based on similarity scores computed between the test subject and the individuals in the crowd. Our dataset consists of 3750 concentration curl repetitions from 25 volunteers with ages and BMI ranging between 20-46 and 24-46, respectively. We compute 11 hand-crafted features and train 2 personalized AdaBoost models, Decision Tree (AdaBoost-DT) and Artificial Neural Networks (AdaBoost-ANN), using data from whom the test subject shares similar physical and single traits. Our findings show that the AdaBoost-DT model outperforms the cross-subject-DT model by 5.89%, while the AdaBoost-ANN model outperforms the cross-subject-ANN model by 3.38%. On the other hand, at 50.0% less of the test subject's data consumption, our AdaBoost-DT model outperforms the subject-specific-DT model by 16%, while the AdaBoost-ANN model outperforms the subject-specific-ANN model by 10.33%. Yet, the subject-specific models achieve the best performances at 100% of the test subjects' data consumption.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".