MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151403658 · doi:10.5539/cis.v8n4p56

Human Identification by Gait Using Time Delay Neural Networks

2015· article· en· W2151403658 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eman Fares Al Mashagba

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer and Information Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGait Recognition and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersZarqa University
KeywordsAccelerationGaitComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceBiometricsComputer visionIdentification (biology)Artificial neural networkViewing angleSet (abstract data type)Motion (physics)Feature (linguistics)SegmentationGait analysisPattern recognition (psychology)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This paper proposed human identification method by gait. Human gait is a type of biometric features and related to the physiological and behavioral features of a human. In this paper, a feature vector of gait motion parameters is extracted from each frame using image segmentation methods, and categorized into different categories. Two of these categories were used to form the gait motion trajectories; Category one: Gait angle velocity: angle velocity hip, angle velocity knee, angle velocity thigh and angle velocity shank. Category two: Gait angle acceleration: angle acceleration hip, angle acceleration knee, angle acceleration thigh and angle acceleration shank for each image sequence. Finally, the TDNN method with different training algorithms is used for recognition purpose. This experiment is done on our own database. This research developed a method which achieves a higher recognition rate in the training set 100% and in the testing set 83%. Also, category one establishes gait motion features to be used in human gait identification applications using different training algorithms, While category two achieved a higher recognition rate by trainrb algorithm.</p>

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.219 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer and Information ScienceSame topicGait Recognition and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207