MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2216719796 · doi:10.1109/iros.2015.7354082

Automatically characterizing driving activities onboard smart wheelchairs from accelerometer data

2015· article· en· W2216719796 on OpenAlexafffund
HiuKim Yuen, Joëlle Pineau, Philippe S. Archambault

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWheelchairAccelerometerComputer scienceClassifier (UML)Random forestMachine learningArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wheelchairs play an important role for people living with locomotor impairments. However, power wheelchair users frequently report both minor and major accidents. The goal of this paper is to advocate for the use of robotic technology, in particular sensor-based detection and automatic classification of activities, to track and characterize activities onboard smart wheelchairs. Experiments were conducted in a clinical setting, in which experienced wheelchair users were asked to conduct a set of typical wheelchair activities. This paper presents an end-to-end pipeline for accurately classifying these activities from accelerometer data using signal processing and machine learning methods. Our classifier achieved an overall accuracy of around 50% in a more than 25 classes classification problem, compared to less than 4% with a random classifier. We also explored the possibility of discovering hidden patterns of activities using unsupervised topic modeling methods. We demonstrated the power of the inferred patterns with two use cases, namely story telling and hazard discovery. Altogether, this work provides new tools for characterizing the usage of smart wheelchairs with typical users.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

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 communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0030.002
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207