Three-Dimensional Motion Capture Data of a Movement Screen from 183 Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Movement screens are widely used to identify aberrant movement patterns in hopes of decreasing risk of injury, identifying talent, and/or improving performance. Motion capture data can provide quantitative, objective feedback regarding movement patterns. The dataset contains three-dimensional (3D) motion capture data of 183 athletes performing mobility tests (ankle, back bend, crossover adduction, crossover rotation, elbows, head, hip turn, scorpion, shoulder abduction, shoulder azimuth, shoulder rotation, side bends, side lunges and trunk rotation) and stability tests (drop jump, hop down, L-cut, lunge, rotary stability, step down and T-balance) bilaterally (where applicable), the athletes' injury history, and demographics. All data were collected at 120 Hz or 480 Hz using an 8-camera Raptor-E motion capture system with 45 passive reflective markers. A total of 5,493 trials were pre-processed and included in .c3d and .mat formats. This dataset will enable researchers and end users to explore movement patterns of athletes of varying demographics from different sports and competition levels; develop objective movement assessment tools; and gain new insights into the relationships between movement patterns and injury.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Dataset About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Dataset About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".