MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977543168 · doi:10.1109/msp.2005.1550191

Gait recognition: a challenging signal processing technology for biometric identification

2005· article· en· W1977543168 on OpenAlexafffund
N.V. Boulgouris, Dimitrios Hatzinakos, Konstantinos N. Plataniotis

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Signal Processing Magazine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGait Recognition and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsBiometricsGaitSoftware deploymentComputer scienceIdentification (biology)Gait analysisSignal processingField (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceData scienceHuman–computer interactionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationDigital signal processingMedicineComputer hardwareSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides an overview of the basic research directions in the field of gait analysis and recognition. The recent developments in gait research indicate that gait technologies still need to mature and that limited practical applications should be expected in the immediate future. At present, there is a potential for initial deployment of gait for recognition in conjunction with other biometrics. However, future advances in gait analysis and recognition - an open, challenging research area - are expected to result in wide deployment of gait technologies not only in surveillance, but in many other applications as well. This article exposes the gait analysis and recognition problem to the signal processing community and it will stimulates the involvement of more researchers in gait research in the future.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations366
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Signal Processing MagazineSame topicGait Recognition and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207