MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164053975 · doi:10.1109/tim.2007.909996

Wavelet Distance Measure for Person Identification Using Electrocardiograms

2008· article· en· W2164053975 on OpenAlexaff
Adrian D. C. Chan, Mohyeldin M. Hamdy, Armin Badre, Vesal Badee

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiometricsArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceWavelet transformModality (human–computer interaction)Measure (data warehouse)Identification (biology)Fingerprint (computing)WaveletThumbResidualSpeech recognitionData miningMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the authors present an evaluation of a new biometric based on electrocardiogram (ECG) waveforms. ECG data were collected from 50 subjects during three data-recording sessions on different days using a simple user interface, where subjects held two electrodes on the pads of their thumbs using their thumb and index fingers. Data from session 1 were used to establish an enrolled database, and data from the remaining two sessions were used as test cases. Classification was performed using three different quantitative measures: percent residual difference, correlation coefficient, and a novel distance measure based on wavelet transform. The wavelet distance measure has a classification accuracy of 89%, outperforming the other methods by nearly 10%. This ECG person-identification modality would be a useful supplement for conventional biometrics, such as fingerprint and palm recognition systems.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations360
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and MeasurementSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207