ArticlePloS one2021
Development and validation of smartwatch-based activity recognition models for rigging crew workers on cable logging operations.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel smartphone-based activity recognition modeling method for tracked equipment in forest operations.PloS one · 2022Article
- Lost in the woods: Forest vegetation, and not topography, most affects the connectivity of mesh radio networks for public safety.PloS one · 2022Article
- Improving the Event-Based Classification Accuracy in Pit-Drilling Operations: An Application by Neural Networks and Median Filtering of the Acceleration Input Signal Data.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Analysis of high-resolution inertial sensor and global navigation satellite system (GNSS) data collected by mobile and wearable devices is a relatively new methodology in forestry and safety research that provides opportunities for modeling work activities in greater detail than traditional time study analysis. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether smartwatch-based activity recognition models could quantify the activities of rigging crew workers setting and disconnecting log chokers on cable logging operations. Four productive cycle elements (travel to log, set choker, travel away, clear) were timed for choker setters and four productive cycle elements (travel to log, unhook, travel away, clear) were timed for chasers working at five logging sites in North Idaho. Each worker wore a smartwatch that recorded accelerometer data at 25 Hz. Random forest machine learning was used to develop predictive models that classified the different cycle elements based on features extracted from the smartwatch acceleration data using 15 sliding window sizes (1 to 15 s) and five window overlap levels (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 90%). Models were compared using multiclass area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve, or AUC. The best choker setter model was created using a 3-s window with 90% overlap and had sensitivity values ranging from 76.95% to 83.59% and precision values ranging from 41.42% to 97.08%. The best chaser model was created using a 1-s window with 90% overlap and had sensitivity values ranging from 71.95% to 82.75% and precision values ranging from 14.74% to 99.16%. These results have demonstrated the feasibility of quantifying forestry work activities using smartwatch-based activity recognition models, a basic step needed to develop real-time safety notifications associated with high-risk job functions and to advance subsequent, comparative analysis of health and safety metrics across stand, site, and work conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.