MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122800222 · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2008.4587546

The Kneed Walker for human pose tracking

2008· article· en· W2122800222 on OpenAlexafffund
Marcus A. Brubaker, David J. Fleet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsTorsoKinematicsComputer scienceTracking (education)Computer visionTrajectoryArtificial intelligenceTorqueRange (aeronautics)SimulationControl theory (sociology)EngineeringPhysicsAerospace engineeringClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Kneed Walker is a physics-based model derived from a planar biomechanical characterization of human locomotion. By controlling torques at the knees, hips and torso, the model captures a full range of walking motions with foot contact and balance. Constraints are used to properly handle ground collisions and joint limits. A prior density over walking motions is based on dynamics that are optimized for efficient cyclic gaits over a wide range of natural human walking speeds and step lengths, on different slopes. The generative model used for monocular tracking comprises the Kneed Walker prior, a 3D kinematic model constrained to be consistent with the underlying dynamics, and a simple measurement model in terms of appearance and optical flow. The tracker is applied to people walking with varying speeds, on hills, and with occlusion.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.007

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
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

Citations72
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207