Automated Detection of Engagement Using Video-Based Estimation of Facial Expressions and Heart Rate
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explored how computer vision techniques can be used to detect engagement while students (N = 22) completed a structured writing activity (draft-feedback-review) similar to activities encountered in educational settings. Students provided engagement annotations both concurrently during the writing activity and retrospectively from videos of their faces after the activity. We used computer vision techniques to extract three sets of features from videos, heart rate, Animation Units (from Microsoft Kinect Face Tracker), and local binary patterns in three orthogonal planes (LBP-TOP). These features were used in supervised learning for detection of concurrent and retrospective self-reported engagement. Area under the ROC Curve (AUC) was used to evaluate classifier accuracy using leave-several-students-out cross validation. We achieved an AUC = .758 for concurrent annotations and AUC = .733 for retrospective annotations. The Kinect Face Tracker features produced the best results among the individual channels, but the overall best results were found using a fusion of channels.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it