MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1590852305 · doi:10.11575/prism/31371

THE EFFECTS OF CAPTURE CONDITIONS ON THE CAMSHIFT FACE TRACKER

2001· article· en· W1590852305 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Boyle

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVisual Attention and Saliency Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFacial motion captureComputer visionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceTracking (education)Face (sociological concept)Orientation (vector space)Facial recognition systemFace detectionComputer graphics (images)Feature extractionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Face tracking - the continuous monitoring of head position, orientation, and geometry - has numerous practical applications for human-computer interaction, such as a perceptual form of multi-modal input. There are several non-invasive and computationally inexpensive techniques for face tracking that draw upon algorithms from computer vision. Of them, Bradski's CAMSHIFT algorithm is appealing because it requires minimal training. These techniques are particularly attractive in light of the growing installed base of fast desktop computers and cheap, low-end desktop digital video cameras. Low-end cameras, however, have characteristics that make them a poor fit for some such face tracking algorithms. In this paper, I introduce the problem of face tracking, provide an overview of the operation of CAMSHIFT as an example of a non-invasive vision-based face tracking algorithms, and describe my experiences attempting to employ video obtained from a low-end desktop digital video camera source in face tracking. I conclude this paper by offering conclusions and recommendations drawn upon my experiences.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations15
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)Same topicVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFrench-language works237,207