MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102044011 · doi:10.1109/icdar.2015.7333925

Evaluation of techniques for signature classification from accelerometer and gyroscope data

2015· article· en· W2102044011 on OpenAlex
Lukas Tencer, Marta Režnáková, Mohamed Cheriet

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTime Series Analysis and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGyroscopeComputer scienceAccelerometerClassifier (UML)Artificial intelligenceData miningSignature (topology)Support vector machinePattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present an exhaustive comparison of techniques for classification of signature data extracted from gyroscope and accelerometer devices. Since there exists large pool of classifiers and features for this kind of data, in order to provide a guide in choosing a particular setup, we decided to explore performance of these methods in a comparative study, which is a missing factor of current works on the topic. Also, we propose a framework for the combination of evaluated techniques in order to achieve a higher precision of the final classifier. The evaluated factors are: transformation of the time-series data into a fixed-size vector, classification methods and the performance of generative techniques without fixed-size input.

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.319
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.050 · 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

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTime Series Analysis and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207