Humans Versus Robots: Converting Golf Putter Trajectories for Robotic Guidance
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
Robotic devices are used to provide physical guidance when teaching different movements. To advance our knowledge of robotic guidance in training complex movements, this investigation tested different kinematic data filtering methods of individual’s golf putts to convert them into trajectories to be employed by a robot arm. The purpose of the current study was to identify a simple filtering method to aptly replicate participants’ individual golf putter trajectories which could be used by the robot to execute them with greater consistency and accuracy than their human counterpart. Participants putted toward three targets where three-dimensional data of the putter’s head were filtered and then fitted by using one or two dimensions of the participant’s putter head trajectories. As expected, both filtering methods employed with the robot outperformed the human participants in ball endpoint accuracy and consistency. Further, after comparing the filtered to the human participants’ trajectories, the two-dimensional method best replicated the kinematic features of human participants’ natural putter trajectory, while the one-dimensional method failed to replicate participant’s backstroke position. This investigation indicates that a two-dimensional filtering method, using Y -forward and Z -vertical position data, can be used to create accurate, consistent, and smooth trajectories delivered by a robot arm.
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