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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.008
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