The Determination of On-Water Rowing Stroke Kinematics Using an Undecimated Wavelet Transform of a Rowing Hull-Mounted Accelerometer Signal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Boat acceleration profiles can provide valuable information for coaches and practitioners to make meaningful technical interventions and monitor the determinants of success in rowing. Previous studies have used simple feature detection methods to identify key phases within individual strokes, such as drive onset, drive time, drive offset and stroke time. However, based on skill level, technique or boat class, the hull acceleration profile can differ, making robust feature detection more challenging. The current study’s purpose is to employ the undecimated wavelet transform (UWT) technique to detect individual features in the stroke acceleration profile from a single rowing hull-mounted accelerometer. In this investigation, the temporal and kinematic values obtained using the AdMosTM sensor in conjunction with the UWT processing approach were strongly correlated with the comparative measures of the Peach™ instrumented oarlock system. The measures for stroke time displayed very strong agreeability between the systems for all boat classes, with ICC values of 0.993, 0.963 and 0.954 for the W8+, W4− and W1x boats, respectively. Similarly, the drive time was also very consistent, with strong to very strong agreeability, producing ICC values of 0.937, 0.901 and 0.881 for the W8+, W4− and W1x boat classes. Further, a Bland–Altman analysis displayed little to no bias between the AdMosTM-derived and Peach™ measures, indicating that there were no systematic discrepancies between signals. This single-sensor solution could form the basis for a simple, cost-effective and accessible alternative to multi-sensor instrumented systems for the determination of sub-stroke kinematic phases.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".