MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2227081553 · doi:10.1049/iet-its.2015.0001

Exploring walking gait features for the automated recognition of distracted pedestrians

2015· article· en· W2227081553 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed H. Zaki, Tarek Sayed

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Intelligent Transport Systems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGait Recognition and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGaitComputer scienceGait analysisDistracted drivingPedestrianPhysical medicine and rehabilitationArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionComputer visionPsychologyDistractionEngineeringTransport engineeringCognitive psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study examines the possibility of automatically detecting distracted pedestrians on crosswalks using their gait parameters. The methodology utilises recent findings in health science concerning the relationship between walking gait behaviour and cognitive abilities. Walking speed and gait variability are shown to be affected by the complexity of tasks (e.g. texting) that are performed during walking. Experiments are performed on a video data set from Surrey, British Columbia. The analysis relies on automated video‐based data collection using computer vision. A sensitivity analysis is carried out to assess the quality of the selected features in improving the accuracy of the classification. Classification results show that the proposed approach is promising with around 80% correct detection rate. This research can benefit applications in several transportation related fields such as pedestrian facility planning, pedestrian simulation models as well as road safety programmes and legislative studies.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.106 · 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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Intelligent Transport SystemsSame topicGait Recognition and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207