MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158866619 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2006.149

Recovering 3D human body configurations using shape contexts

2006· article· en· W2158866619 on OpenAlexafffund
Giulio Mori, Jitendra Malik

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimon Fraser UniversityDivision of Mathematical SciencesUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceHuman-body modelKinematicsContext (archaeology)Process (computing)Matching (statistics)Human bodyJoint (building)Articulated body pose estimationVariety (cybernetics)Tracking (education)Shape contextFrame (networking)Image (mathematics)3D pose estimationMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem we consider in this paper is to take a single two-dimensional image containing a human figure, locate the joint positions, and use these to estimate the body configuration and pose in three-dimensional space. The basic approach is to store a number of exemplar 2D views of the human body in a variety of different configurations and viewpoints with respect to the camera. On each of these stored views, the locations of the body joints (left elbow, right knee, etc.) are manually marked and labeled for future use. The input image is then matched to each stored view, using the technique of shape context matching in conjunction with a kinematic chain-based deformation model. Assuming that there is a stored view sufficiently similar in configuration and pose, the correspondence process will succeed. The locations of the body joints are then transferred from the exemplar view to the test shape. Given the 2D joint locations, the 3D body configuration and pose are then estimated using an existing algorithm. We can apply this technique to video by treating each frame independently--tracking just becomes repeated recognition. We present results on a variety of data sets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations249
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine IntelligenceSame topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207