MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2275579731 · doi:10.1109/tce.2015.7389796

Gesture recognition using Markov Systems and wearable wireless inertial sensors

2015· article· en· W2275579731 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHand Gesture Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHidden Markov modelGestureComputer scienceGesture recognitionWearable computerMarkov chainContext (archaeology)Artificial intelligenceInertial measurement unitWirelessMarkov modelComputer visionMarkov processSpeech recognitionPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningEmbedded systemMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wearable wireless devices and ubiquitous computing are expected to grow significantly in the coming years. Standard inputs such as a mouse and keyboard are not well suited for such mobile systems and gestures are seen as an effective alternative to these classic input styles. This paper examines gesture recognition algorithms that use an inertial sensor worn on the forearm. The recognition algorithms use the sensor's quaternion orientation in either a Hidden Markov Model or Markov Chain based approach. A set of six gestures were selected to fit within the context of an active video game. Despite the fact that the Hidden Markov Model is one of the most commonly used methods for gesture recognition, the experiments showed that the Markov Chain based algorithms outperformed the Hidden Markov Model. The Markov Chain algorithm obtained an average accuracy of 95%, while also having a much faster computation time, making it better suited for real time applications.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.216 · 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