MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098232491 · doi:10.1109/ipin.2012.6418902

Activity and environment classification using foot mounted navigation sensors

2012· article· en· W2098232491 on OpenAlexaff
Jared B. Bancroft, David C. Garrett, Gérard Lachapelle

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGait Recognition and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobal Positioning SystemComputer scienceInertial measurement unitArtificial intelligenceElevatorMetric (unit)Computer visionCrawlingTracking (education)Activity recognitionEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foot mounted navigation systems can be deployed for tracking military personnel, first responders and offenders. Determining the activity and environment of individuals can provide valuable information to those monitoring these individuals. This paper provides activity and environment classification for a foot mounted device that uses an IMU and GPS receiver. Using information from the navigation filter (e.g. velocity), GPS signal tracking parameters, and IMU measurements this paper presents an algorithm that classifies the following activities: indoor, outdoor, stationary, crawling, walking, running, biking, moving in vehicle, level, up or down elevator and up or down stairs. Multiple probability density functions that map each feature (i.e. metric) to an activity are provided. Then a naive Bayesian probabilistic model is used to determine the probability of an activity. To improve reliability and accuracy of the classification several conditions are added. The algorithm shows excellent results for activity classification, however environment classification is less reliable due to variations in GPS tracking abilities as a function of the environment. Results are shown with images from the data collection.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations21
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGait Recognition and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207