MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035481252 · doi:10.1109/crv.2010.30

Water Flow Detection in a Handwashing Task

2010· article· en· W2035481252 on OpenAlexaff
Babak Taati, Jasper Snoek, David Giesbrecht, Alex Mihailidis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Computer scienceUsabilityTask (project management)Activities of daily livingArtificial intelligenceOptical flowIndependent livingComputer visionHuman–computer interactionPsychologyEngineeringMedicineImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Older adults suffering from Alzheimer's disease often require assistance with performing simple activities of daily living, such as washing their hands in the bathroom. This severely limits their independence and places a heavy care giving burden on their family and the healthcare system. The motivation for developing a water detection algorithm is for it to be used within a system that provides reminding prompts for Alzheimer's sufferers and to study product usability for older adults with cognitive impairments. Water detection in a video sequence poses a challenging computer vision problem since it is difficult to model the flow of water in a structured manner. A real-time detection system is presented here that estimates the presence of flowing water in a bathroom sink during a hand washing task based on classifying video and audio features with an overall accuracy of 88.76%. Visual features are extracted using temporal image derivatives and hand tracking is used to enhance the robustness in the visual features.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

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)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207