MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289538368 · doi:10.5703/1288284317547

Development of a Remote Wearables Laboratory Course

2022· report· en· W4289538368 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Mayerhofer, James Carter, Max Donelan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCourse (navigation)Wearable computerComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionMultimediaEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Delivering a remote, hands-on lab course in human biomechanics can be challenging. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed an inexpensive, customizable hardware kit along with fully open-source teaching resources to help educators deliver their biomechanics lab courses remotely. These resources allow educators to teach students how to conduct hypothesis-driven biomechanical experiments, without the need for students to have previous coding or electronics experience. Additionally, all of our resources are fully customizable, allowing educators to fit the requirements of their respective biomechanics courses. Before developing our course resources, we defined multiple key principles. First, the whole system must be wearable. All measurement systems should be able to run battery powered and store data. Second, students should not require technical experience for taking the course. Setting up the hardware should work without soldering, and the number of wires and devices for a measurement system should be at a minimum. Students also should not require prior coding knowledge to set up software for the measurement systems and the data analysis. Third, all resources should be financially accessible. The hardware kit should be inexpensive (~cost of a textbook), all the software required should be open-source, and the instructional materials should be open-access. Lastly, the workload for educators to develop a similar course should be minimal. All hardware, software, and instructional materials should be customizable. Our hardware kit consists of commercially available electronic components, specified online [1], with a microcontroller as its base (Fig. A microcontroller functions as a small computer and can read, alter, and output signals from and to other devices in the system. To make the hardware kit wearable, a 9V battery can power the system and a data logger can store the data on a micro SD, eliminating the need for a computer connection. To make the system solderless and minimize the number of wires, all devices in the kit directly connect to the microcontroller with no more than three wires. Moreover, our hardware kit is ~$120 US and can be customized with any device that communicates digitally, analog, or via a specific one-wire-communication system called "qwiic". To support students without prior coding experience, we share our codes in openaccess GitHub repositories [1]. To make all software open-source, we chose Arduino IDE (Integrated Development Environment), a commonly used programming platform for microcontrollers, to program our hardware, and Python, the fastest growing programming language in the world, for data analysis

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExperimental Learning in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207