A Hybrid Classifier Fusion Approach for Motor Unit Potential Classification During EMG Signal Decomposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a hybrid classifier fusion scheme for motor unit potential classification during electromyographic (EMG) signal decomposition. The scheme uses an aggregator module consisting of two stages of classifier fusion: the first at the abstract level using class labels and the second at the measurement level using confidence values. Performance of the developed system was evaluated using one set of real signals and two sets of simulated signals and was compared with the performance of the constituent base classifiers and the performance of a one-stage classifier fusion approach. Across the EMG signal data sets used and relative to the performance of base classifiers, the hybrid approach had better average classification performance overall. For the set of simulated signals of varying intensity, the hybrid classifier fusion system had on average an improved correct classification rate (CCr) (6.1%) and reduced error rate (Er) (0.4%). For the set of simulated signals of varying amounts of shape and/or firing pattern variability, the hybrid classifier fusion system had on average an improved CCr (6.2%) and reduced Er (0.9%). For real signals, the hybrid classifier fusion system had on average an improved CCr (7.5%) and reduced Er (1.7%).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".