Determining human upper limb postures with a developed inverse kinematic method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Body posture determination methods have many applications, including product design, ergonomic workplace design, human body simulation, virtual reality, and animation industry. Initiated in robotics, inverse kinematic (IK) method has been widely applied to proactive human body posture estimation. The analytic inverse kinematic (AIK) method is a convenient and time-saving type of IK methods. It is also indicated that, based on AIK methods, a specific body posture can be determined by the optimization of an arbitrary objective function. The objective of this paper is to predict the postures of human arms during reaching tasks. In this research, a human body model is established in MATLAB, where the middle rotation axis analytic kinematic method is accomplished, based on this model. The joint displacement function and joint discomfort function are selected to be initially applied in this AIK method. Results show that neither the joint displacement function nor the joint discomfort function predicts postures that are close enough to natural upper limb postures of human being, during reaching tasks. Therefore, a bi-criterion objective function is proposed by integrating the joint displacement function and joint discomfort function. The accuracy of the arm postures, predicted by the proposed objective function, is the most satisfactory, while the optimal value of the coefficient, in the proposed objective function, is determined by golden section search.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".