MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1574233865 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.12829

Suspect Height Estimation Using the Faro Focus<sup>3D</sup> Laser Scanner

2015· article· en· W1574233865 on OpenAlexaff
Monique Johnson, Eugene Liscio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuspectLaser scanningScannerSoftwareFocus (optics)LaserComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionOpticsPsychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At present, very little research has been devoted to investigating the ability of laser scanning technology to accurately measure height from surveillance video. The goal of this study was to test the accuracy of one particular laser scanner to estimate suspect height from video footage. The known heights of 10 individuals were measured using an anthropometer. The individuals were then recorded on video walking along a predetermined path in a simulated crime scene environment both with and without headwear. The difference between the known heights and the estimated heights obtained from the laser scanner software were compared using a one-way t-test. The height estimates obtained from the software were not significantly different from the known heights whether individuals were wearing headwear (p = 0.186) or not (p = 0.707). Thus, laser scanning is one technique that could potentially be used by investigators to determine suspect height from video footage.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207