MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2399428441 · doi:10.1109/wacv.2016.7477704

Video summarization for remote invigilation of online exams

2016· article· en· W2399428441 on OpenAlexafffund
Melissa Cote, Frédéric Jean, Alexandra Branzan Albu, David W. Capson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Analysis and Summarization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAutomatic summarizationComputer scienceMultimediaHidden Markov modelOnline videoWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligenceInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses on video summarization of abnormal behavior for remote invigilation of online exams. While the last decade has seen a massive increase in e-learning and online courses offered at postsecondary institutions, preserving the integrity of online examinations still heavily relies on web video conference invigilation performed by a remote proctor. Live remote invigilation is limited in the number of students that can be handled at once, and manual post-exam review is labor intensive. We propose a novel computer vision-based video content analysis system for the automatic creation of video summaries of online exams to assist remote proctors in post-exam reviews. The proposed method models normal and abnormal student behavior patterns using head pose estimations and a semantically meaningful two-state hidden Markov model. Video summaries are created from detected sequences of abnormal behavior. Experimental results are promising and demonstrate the viability of the proposed approach, which could readily be expanded to generate real-time alerts for live remote invigilation.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations50
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVideo Analysis and SummarizationFrench-language works237,207