MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394717322 · doi:10.1080/14763141.2024.2331174

Automatic detection of skate strokes in short-track speed skating using one single IMU: validation of a new method

2024· article· en· W4394717322 on OpenAlexaff
Julien Clément, Félix Croteau, Marthe Monique Gagnon, Stéphane Cros

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Biomechanics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWinter Sports Injuries and Performance
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInertial measurement unitComputer scienceSpeed skatingComputer visionSkateArtificial intelligenceReliability (semiconductor)AccelerometerFrame rateSimulationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Greater impulse is a key performance indicator of success in short track speed skating. The main objective of this study was to develop a method to measure skating strokes using a single IMU. Eight elite or world-class speed skaters had one IMU placed against their skin on the lower back, and a camera setup was positioned to capture the test. A maximal speed trial was then executed by each participant, and the data were analysed to estimate agreement between the camera and IMU estimates of skate stroke events. Inter-evaluator reliability was assessed on a dataset of 22 athletes performing speed trials as well. The algorithm detected 100% of the strokes identified on the video capture system with a root mean square error of 0.06s. Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of 0.03s between the two methods, which corresponds to the frame rate of the camera. The inter-evaluator reliability yielded an intra-class correlation of 1.00 (ICC3,1) from a dataset of 7089 strokes. This study provides an example of on-ice evaluation of speed skating strokes using a single IMU. This equipment is less expensive than that employed by previous authors and can be implemented in training situations with low invasiveness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSports BiomechanicsSame topicWinter Sports Injuries and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207