Evaluation of the accuracy of a UWB tracker for in-home positioning for older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The population of older adults is rapidly growing. In-home monitoring systems have been used to support aging-in-place. Ambient sensors or wearable localizers can be used but may be too low resolution, while camera systems are invasive to privacy. Ultra-wideband (UWB) localization offers precise positioning by placing anchors throughout the house and wearing a tag that is tracked by the anchors. In this study, the accuracy of UWB for indoor tracking was evaluated in a motion capture gait lab and in a mock condo in the Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital. First, the configuration of UWB was tested, changing factors related to sampling time, anchor placement and line-of-sight. Comparing these factors to the configurations recommended by the manufacturer guidelines, accuracies remained within 14 cm. We then performed static and dynamic accuracy tests, with dynamic testing comprised of rolling and walking motions. In the motion capture lab, we found localization accuracies of 7.0 ± 11.1 cm while in the mock condo, we found accuracies of 27.3 ± 12.9 cm. Dynamic testing with rolling motions had an average of 19.1 ± 1.6 cm while walking was 20.5 ± 4.2 cm. The mean accuracy of UWB is within the 30 cm target for indoor localization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".