Performance analysis of different classification methods for hand gesture recognition using range cameras
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
Most of the methods described in the literature for automatic hand gesture recognition make use of classification techniques with a variety of features and classifiers. This research focuses on the frequently-used ones by performing a comparative analysis using datasets collected with a range camera. Eight different gestures were considered in this research. The features include Hu-moments, orientation histograms and hand shape associated with its distance transformation image. As classifiers, the k-nearest neighbor algorithm and the chamfer distance have been chosen. For an extensive comparison, four different databases have been collected with variation in translation, orientation and scale. The evaluation has been performed by measuring the separability of classes, and by analyzing the overall recognition rates as well as the processing times. The best result is obtained from the combination of the chamfer distance classifier and hand shape and distance transformation image, but the time analysis reveals that the corresponding processing time is not adequate for a real-time 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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