MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403334246 · doi:10.1145/3654777.3676342

Gait Gestures: Examining Stride and Foot Strike Variation as an Input Method While Walking

2024· article· en· W4403334246 on OpenAlexaff
Ching-Yi Tsai, Ryan Yen, Daekun Kim, Daniel Vogel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSTRIDEGaitGestureVariation (astronomy)Computer scienceFoot (prosody)Gait analysisPhysical medicine and rehabilitationArtificial intelligenceMedicinePhysicsArtComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Walking is a cyclic pattern of alternating footstep strikes, with each pair of steps forming a stride, and a series of strides forming a gait. We conduct a systematic examination of different kinds of intentional variations from a normal gait that could be used as input actions without interrupting overall walking progress. A design space of 22 candidate Gait Gestures is generated by adapting previous standing foot input actions and identifying new actions possible in a walking context. A formative study (n=25) examines movement easiness, social acceptability, and walking compatibility with foot movement logging to calculate temporal and spatial characteristics. Using a categorization of these results, 7 gestures are selected for a wizard-of-oz prototype demonstrating an AR interface controlled by Gait Gestures for ordering food and audio playback while walking. As a technical proof-of-concept, a gait gesture recognizer is developed and tested using the formative study data.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention→French-language works237,207→