Human Function Research and Public Papers

Movetips' research begins with a foundational question: Can human function serve as a unifying computational organizing principle for understanding the whole person? The question connects definition, semantics, ontology, domain-specific models, longitudinal world modeling, intelligence, professional practice, and reusable computational specifications. It calls for both conceptual argument and reproducible empirical comparison.

Research paper: What Is a Whole Person?

Lei Che’s bilingual paper (25 October 2026) examines the whole person as a scientific subject, model scope, cross-domain interpretation and independently supported task validity. Published as a Zenodo preprint. Read the complete paper

From domain-specific systems to justified personal judgments

Medicine, physiology, rehabilitation, movement science, behavior, and related fields already have powerful domain models. They typically serve different tasks and represent different evidence. HFWM asks how physiological processes, disease, real-world demands, personal capacity, actual engagement, medical interventions, and long-term change can be related to the state of the same individual. Would using human function as a common computational coordinate improve continuity, explainability, and evidence-constrained reasoning? Could another organizing principle do the job as well—or better?

The research objective is not to assume the answer. It is to express the competing claims as questions that can be challenged, compared, and reproduced.

The program: definition, semantics, world modeling, reasoning, and application

Human-function definition research clarifies relationships among demands, capacities, engagement, and outcomes. UOHF organizes concepts, semantic relations, evidence, and versioning. HFWM investigates cross-domain state representation, temporal updating, and model coordination for the whole person. Human Function Intelligence investigates task decomposition, bidirectional reasoning, traceability, learning, and feedback. HFOS and professional education provide application contexts in which the scientific questions can be tested and refined. These are distinct layers with different research and engineering acceptance criteria.

What counts as evidence?

A defensible evaluation can predefine participants or cases, tasks, input evidence, baselines, output schema, and assessment metrics. In addition to answer accuracy, the evaluation should test whether a system distinguishes capacity from engagement, recognizes missing evidence, traces its inferences, handles longitudinal records, avoids unsupported diagnosis, and appropriately revises interpretations as information changes. Where clinical or patient data are involved, valid governance, approved procedures, safety measures, and independent review may be necessary.

Preprints, software, and clinical validation are different things

A preprint or publicly archived framework can establish what an author proposed; it does not itself demonstrate peer-reviewed acceptance. A product demonstration may establish that certain workflows can be run; it does not automatically establish clinical effectiveness. A future protocol design does not mean that an international standard has already been adopted. Movetips distinguishes proposed, implemented, evaluated, independently validated, and adopted outcomes, and aims to make appropriate sources, versions, and updates visible.

Public research resources

The website must keep titles, authors, versions, and publication status consistent with verifiable public records; it must not invent journal acceptance, publication, clinical validation, or institutional partnerships.

Openness, collaboration, and safety

Movetips welcomes scientific engagement with functional definitions, multiscale modeling, assessment methods, evidence governance, testable reasoning, professional education, and interoperability. Public discussion does not imply that proprietary production ontology assets, unlicensed third-party knowledge, internal decision rules, or identifiable personal health records are available. All sharing must respect rights, consent, confidentiality, and safety.