A biomechanics dataset of healthy human walking at various speeds, step lengths and step widths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The biomechanics of human walking are well documented for standard conditions such as for self-selected step length and preferred speed. However, humans can and do walk with a variety of other step lengths and speeds during daily living. The variation of biomechanics across gait conditions may be important for describing and determining the mechanics of locomotion. To address this, we present an open biomechanics dataset of steady walking at a broad range of conditions, including 33 experimentally-controlled combinations of speed (0.7–2.0 m·s−1), step length (0.5–1.1 m), and step width (0–0.4 m). The dataset contains ground reaction forces and motions from healthy young adults (N = 10), collected using split-belt instrumented treadmill and motion capture systems respectively. Most trials also include pre-computed inverse dynamics, including 3D joint positions, angles, torques and powers, as well as intersegmental forces. Apart from raw data, we also provide five strides of good quality data without artifacts for each trial, and sample software for visualization and 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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".