MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144734761 · doi:10.3141/2339-09

Toward a Flexible System for Pedestrian Data Collection with a Microsoft Kinect Motion-Sensing Device

2013· article· en· W2144734761 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel Charreyron, Stewart Jackson, Luis Miranda-Moreno

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedestrianComputer scienceData collectionReal-time computingSoftwareTracking systemSimulationTransport engineeringComputer visionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data on pedestrian activity, including volumes, walking speed, and trajectories, are used by transportation agencies and researchers for planning, design, and analysis. Several technologies are available for automatic collection of pedestrian data; however, all have inherent limitations in either functionality or monetary cost. Also, most technologies provide only counts. This paper proposes the use of an inexpensive motion-sensing device, Microsoft Kinect, which can track multiple people in low light conditions and can be combined with existing video-based daytime tracking. The tracking software and speed estimation methodologies are described, and indoor and outdoor studies show the system's effectiveness at determining pedestrian volumes and walking speeds. The accuracy of speed data is very satisfactory, with correlation of 98% or more for video data validation speeds. The accuracy of pedestrian volume data varies with traffic conditions; however, in low to moderate traffic conditions its performance is acceptable, with an undercounting error near 8%. The applications of the sensor and its complementarity with other sensors are discussed, as these are the first step toward a multisensor system.

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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.208
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicHuman Mobility and Location-Based AnalysisFrench-language works237,207