A Simple and Valid Method to Calculate Wheelchair Frame Rotation Using One Wheel-Mounted IMU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wheelchair sports have been using Inertial Measurement Units (IMU) to measure mobility metrics during training, testing and competition. Presently, the most suitable solution to calculate wheelchair speed and frame rotation is the 3IMU method as there is uncertainty about the ability of a one wheel-mounted IMU (1IMU) approach to calculate wheelchair frame rotational kinematics. A new method for calculating wheelchair frame rotational kinematics using a single wheel-mounted IMU is presented and compared to a criterion measurement using a wheelchair-frame-mounted IMU. Goodness-of-fit statistics demonstrate very strong linear relationships between wheelchair frame angular velocity calculated from the wheel-mounted IMUs and a wheelchair-frame-mounted IMU. Root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE) and Bland-Altman analysis show very small differences between the wheelchair frame angular velocity calculated from the wheel-mounted IMUs and the wheelchair-frame-mounted IMU. This study has demonstrated a simple and accurate approach to estimating wheelchair frame rotation using one wheel-mounted IMU during an elite wheelchair athlete agility task. Future research is needed to reexamine and compare wheelchair mobility metrics determined using the 3IMU and 1IMU solutions using this new approach.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".