Comparison of Measured and Observed Exercise Fidelity during a Neuromuscular Training Warm-Up
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuromuscular training (NMT) warm-up programs effectively prevent injuries in youth, but monitoring exercise fidelity is challenging. The purpose of this study was to compare the exercise fidelity as measured via an inertial measurement unit (IMU) with direct observations of selected exercises. Youth basketball and soccer players performed single leg jumps, squat jumps, Nordic hamstring curls, and/or single leg balance exercises as part of an NMT warm-up. An IMU was placed on the lower back of each participant and the warm-up was video recorded. A physiotherapist evaluated the volume aspect of exercise fidelity (i.e., performing the prescribed number of repetitions) using the video recordings and a checklist. Algorithms were developed to count the number of repetitions from the IMU signal. The repetitions from the algorithms were compared with the physiotherapist’s evaluation, and accuracy, precision, and recall were calculated for each exercise. A total of 91 (39 female, 52 male) athletes performed at least one of the four warm-up exercises. There was an accuracy, precision, and recall of greater than 88% for all exercises. The single leg jump algorithm classified all sets correctly. IMUs may be used to quantify exercise volume for exercises that involve both impact during landing and changes in orientation during rotations.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it