MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1612236069 · doi:10.1109/iccis.2015.7274609

Mobile robotic active view planning for physiotherapy and physical exercise guidance

2015· article· en· W1612236069 on OpenAlexaff
Kalana Ishara, Ivan Lee, Russell S. A. Brinkworth

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViewpointsTrainerComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMobile robotComputer visionRobotHuman–computer interactionPlannerTerm (time)SimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consulting a physiotherapist or physical trainer for long term regular exercises is not financially affordable for all. As a solution, our long term research goal is to develop a robotic physiotherapist/physical trainer which could instructively and physically guide a performer. Towards that direction, in this paper we present an autonomously repositioning mobile robot to observe a person throughout a sequence of physical exercises by selecting less self-occluded viewpoints. A viewpoint specific joint mutual occlusion (JMO) measurement is formulated at candidate viewpoints. Then a utility function, which accounts for joint occlusion, skeleton coverage, sensing range and moving cost, is averaged over the sub-activity periodic duration to find the optimal viewpoint. Proposed methods have been evaluated with multi-view dataset and an online mobile robot while a person performed eight different physical activities with two trials each. Results indicate proposed active view planner can autonomously drive the mobile robot to a less self-occluded viewpoint over manually setup fixed viewpoint observation, leading to more accurate human movement analysis.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207