Crowd analysis with target tracking, K-means clustering and hidden Markov models
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents a framework for crowd analysis that can handle both sparse and dense crowds, by combining micro- and macroscopic crowd analysis approaches. The paper focuses on detection, tracking and behaviour of dense crowds. We use multiple target tracking (MTT), group tracking, K-means clustering and hidden Markov models (HMM). K-means clustering is used to decide if micro- or macroscopic approaches should be used. A first evaluation, based on recorded and simulated data sets, has been done. The evaluation shows that MTT works well when the crowd is relatively sparse. When the crowd becomes dense track identities are easily switched between tracks. For dense crowds centroid-based group tracking is proposed. The algorithms for dense crowd detection and behavior recognition show promising results. The accuracies of the algorithms range from 84 % and above. Increased internal crowd activities will, however, temporarily reduce the accuracy of the centroid-based group tracking.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it