Human Identification Based on Geometric Feature Extraction Using a Number of Biometric Systems Available: Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biometric technology has attracted much attention in biometric recognition. Significant online and offline applications satisfy security and human identification based on this technology. Biometric technology identifies a human based on unique features possessed by a person. Biometric features may be physiological or behavioral. A physiological feature is based on the direct measurement of a part of the human body such as a fingerprint, face, iris, blood vessel pattern at the back of the eye, vascular patterns, DNA, and hand or palm scan recognition. A behavioral feature is based on data derived from an action performed by the user. Thus, this feature measures the characteristics of the human body such as signature/handwriting, gait, voice, gesture, and keystroke dynamics. A biometric system is performed as follows: acquisition, comparison, feature extraction, and matching. The most important step is feature extraction, which determines the performance of human identification. Different methods are used for extraction, namely, appearance- and geometry-based methods. This paper reports on a review of human identification based on geometric feature extraction using several biometric systems available. We compared the different biometrics in biometric technology based on the geometric features extracted in different studies. Several biometric approaches have more geometric features, such as hand, gait, face, fingerprint, and signature features, compared with other biometric technology. Thus, geometry-based method with different biometrics can be applied simply and efficiently. The eye region extracted from the face is mainly used in face recognition. In addition, the extracted eye region has more details as the iris features.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".