Development and Evaluation of a Slip Detection Algorithm for Walking on Level and Inclined Ice Surfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Slip-resistant footwear can prevent fall-related injuries on icy surfaces. Winter footwear slip resistance can be measured by the Maximum Achievable Angle (MAA) test, which measures the steepest ice-covered incline that participants can walk up and down without experiencing a slip. However, the MAA test requires the use of a human observer to detect slips, which increases the variability of the test. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate an automated slip detection algorithm for walking on level and inclined ice surfaces to be used with the MAA test to replace the need for human observers. Kinematic data were collected from nine healthy young adults walking up and down on ice surfaces in a range from 0° to 12° using an optical motion capture system. Our algorithm segmented these data into steps and extracted features as inputs to two linear support vector machine classifiers. The two classifiers were trained, optimized, and validated to classify toe slips and heel slips, respectively. A total of approximately 11,000 steps from 9 healthy participants were collected, which included approximately 4700 slips. Our algorithm was able to detect slips with an overall F1 score of 90.1%. In addition, the algorithm was able to accurately classify backward toe slips, forward toe slips, backward heel slips, and forward heel slips with F1 scores of 97.3%, 54.5%, 80.9%, and 86.5%, respectively.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".