Computer vision approach for the classification of bike type (motorized versus non‐motorized) during busy traffic in the city of Shanghai
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This article describes a novel approach for the binary classification of two‐wheeler road users in a dense mixed traffic intersection. The classification is a supervised procedure to differentiate between motorized and non‐motorized (human‐powered) bikes. Road users were first detected and tracked using object recognition methods. Classification features were then selected from the collected trajectories. The features include maximum speed, cadence frequency in addition to acceleration‐based parameters. Experiments were conducted on a video data set from Shanghai, China, where cyclists as well as motorcycles tend to share the main road facilities. A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the quality of the selected features in improving the accuracy of the classification. A performance analysis demonstrated the robustness of the proposed classification method with a correct classification rate of up to 93%. This research contributes to the literature of automated data collection and can benefit the applications in many transportation‐related fields such as shared space facility planning, simulation models for two‐wheelers, and behavior analysis and road safety studies. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it