MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129004304 · doi:10.3390/mi6081100

Activity Recognition Using Fusion of Low-Cost Sensors on a Smartphone for Mobile Navigation Application

2015· article· en· W2129004304 on OpenAlex

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

VenueMicromachines · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivity recognitionFeature selectionNaive Bayes classifierArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceDecision treeMachine learningClassifier (UML)Artificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)Feature (linguistics)Support vector machineComputationInferenceFeature extraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low-cost inertial and motion sensors embedded on smartphones have provided a new platform for dynamic activity pattern inference. In this research, a comparison has been conducted on different sensor data, feature spaces and feature selection methods to increase the efficiency and reduce the computation cost of activity recognition on the smartphones. We evaluated a variety of feature spaces and a number of classification algorithms from the area of Machine Learning, including Naive Bayes, Decision Trees, Artificial Neural Networks and Support Vector Machine classifiers. A smartphone app that performs activity recognition is being developed to collect data and send them to a server for activity recognition. Using extensive experiments, the performance of various feature spaces has been evaluated. The results showed that the Bayesian Network classifier yields recognition accuracy of 96.21% using four features while requiring fewer computations.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.251 · 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