Analysis Of Improvements In The Practice Of Anthropometry Through 3D Scanning And Photogrammetry At UNITEC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At UNITEC Tegucigalpa, it was observed that, during anthropometry laboratory practices, body measurements were obtained from the subjects measured using traditional methods, where the measurers took the measurements in various ways.This variability caused fatigue in both the students being measured and the measurers, resulting in delays in obtaining results.Consequently, these results could have some degree of alteration, which was not conducive to the classroom activity.The objective was to analyze improvements in the methodology for taking anthropometric measurements through alternative measurement methods, with the participation of 14 students from the Methods Engineering I class.It was found that the photogrammetry method offered greater reliability (AE = -0.40cm) compared to the 3D scanning method (AE = +4.19cm).The photogrammetry method had the highest percentage of activity by the measuring student, reaching 100%, and reduced the time by 32.16% (average percentage relative error with AE = -8.13min) compared to the traditional method.On the other hand, the 3D scanning method resulted in a greater idle time for the measurer, accounting for 78.82% (7.79 minutes) of the total time.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".