Measurement and Evaluation of Human Sitting and Standing Movement Biomechanics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While regenerative actuators can extend the operating durations of robotic lower-limb exoskeletons and prostheses, these energy-efficient devices have been exclusively designed and evaluated for level-ground walking. Building on previous research, this work analyzed the lower-limb joint biomechanical power during stand-to-sit movements using inverse dynamics modelling and simulation to estimate the biomechanical energy available for electrical regeneration. Nine subjects performed 20 sitting and standing movements while lower-limb kinematics and ground reaction forces were measured. Subject-specific body segment parameters were estimated using dynamic parameter identification, whereby differences in ground reaction forces and moments between the experimental measurements and inverse dynamic simulations were minimized. Joint biomechanical power was calculated from net joint torques and rotational velocities and numerically integrated over time to determine joint biomechanical energy. The hip generated the largest maximum negative biomechanical power (1.8 ± 0.5 W/kg), followed by the knee joint (0.8 ± 0.3 W/kg) and ankle joint (0.2 ± 0.1 W/kg). Negative biomechanical energy from the hip, knee, and ankle joints per stand-to-sit movement were 0.36 ± 0.06 J/kg, 0.16 ± 0.08 J/kg, and 0.03 ± 0.01 J/kg, respectively. Future research should focus on biomechanical modelling and movement tracking of seniors and rehabilitation patients to better estimate the joint biomechanical energy available for electrical regeneration with robotic lower-limb exoskeletons and prostheses.Reference:Laschowski B, Razavian RS, and McPhee J. (2020). Simulation of Stand-to-Sit Biomechanics for Designing Lower-Limb Exoskeletons and Prostheses with Energy Regeneration. Under Review.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it