Behavior recognition based on machine learning algorithms for a wireless canine machine interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Training and handling working dogs is a costly process and requires specialized skills and techniques. Less subjective and lower-cost training techniques would not only improve our partnership with these dogs but also enable us to benefit from their skills more efficiently. To facilitate this, we are developing a canine body-area-network (cBAN) to combine sensing technologies and computational modeling to provide handlers with a more accurate interpretation for dog training. As the first step of this, we used inertial measurement units (IMU) to remotely detect the behavioral activity of canines. Decision tree classifiers and Hidden Markov Models were used to detect static postures (sitting, standing, lying down, standing on two legs and eating off the ground) and dynamic activities (walking, climbing stairs and walking down a ramp) based on the heuristic features of the accelerometer and gyroscope data provided by the wireless sensing system deployed on a canine vest. Data was collected from 6 Labrador Retrievers and a Kai Ken. The analysis of IMU location and orientation helped to achieve high classification accuracies for static and dynamic activity recognition.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".