MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037890934 · doi:10.1117/12.853031

Human action recognition using extreme learning machine via multiple types of features

2010· article· en· W2037890934 on OpenAlexafffund
Rashid Minhas, Aryaz Baradarani, Sepideh Seifzadeh, Q. M. Jonathan Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and ELM
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceAction recognitionExtreme learning machineArtificial intelligenceAction (physics)Machine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces a human actions recognition framework based on multiple types of features. Taking the advantage of motion-selectivity property of 3D dual-tree complex wavelet transform (3D DT-CWT) and affine SIFT local image detector, firstly spatio-temporal and local static features are extracted. No assumptions of scene background, location, objects of interest, or point of view information are made whereas bidirectional two-dimensional PCA (2D-PCA) is employed for dimensionality reduction which offers enhanced capabilities to preserve structure and correlation amongst neighborhood pixels of a video frame. The proposed technique is significantly faster than traditional methods due to volumetric processing of input video, and offers a rich representation of human actions in terms of reduction in artifacts. Experimental examples are given to illustrate the effectiveness of the approach.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicMachine Learning and ELMFrench-language works237,207