ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
RESC: A Rubric-Guided Error-Score Consistency Framework for Action Quality Assessment in Vocational Fitter Training.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Action quality assessment in vocational fitter training is constrained by limited expert-annotated data and insufficiently interpretable predictions. To achieve accurate scoring and rubric-aligned, auditable explanations with limited data, this study proposes RESC, a rubric-guided error-score consistency framework. RESC uses human pose as its primary visual evidence and converts an instructor rubric into error semantics and scoring constraints. It therefore predicts an overall score while producing rubric-aligned error diagnoses and model-derived itemized deduction contributions. We constructed Fitter-AQA, a dataset of 134 filing videos from 25 participants, and evaluated the framework using strict leave-one-subject-out cross-validation. RESC achieved a mean absolute error of 4.450, a Pearson linear correlation coefficient of 0.902, and a Spearman rank correlation coefficient of 0.852, corresponding to the lowest pooled scoring errors and highest pooled correlations among the evaluated methods. Error diagnosis reached a Macro-F1 of 0.770 and a macro-average balanced accuracy of 0.824. These results indicate stable cross-subject scoring under limited-data conditions and transform model predictions into an auditable score decomposition aligned with rubric semantics. RESC thus provides an accurate and interpretable approach to automated assessment in vocational skills training.
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.