A Novel Accelerometer-Based Gesture Recognition System
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
In this paper, we address the problem of gesture recognition using the theory of random projection (RP) and by formulating the whole recognition problem as an <formula formulatype="inline" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex Notation="TeX">$\ell_{1}$</tex></formula> -minimization problem. The gesture recognition system operates primarily on data from a single 3-axis accelerometer and comprises two main stages: a training stage and a testing stage. For training, the system employs dynamic time warping as well as affinity propagation to create exemplars for each gesture while for testing, the system projects all candidate traces and also the unknown trace onto the same lower dimensional subspace for recognition. A dictionary of 18 gestures is defined and a database of over 3700 traces is created from seven subjects on which the system is tested and evaluated. To the best of our knowledge, our dictionary of gestures is the largest in published studies related to acceleration-based gesture recognition. The system achieves almost perfect user-dependent recognition, and mixed-user and user-independent recognition accuracies that are highly competitive with systems based on statistical methods and with the other accelerometer-based gesture recognition systems available in the literature.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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