MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2468573874 · doi:10.1117/12.2241108

Effects of training set selection on pain recognition via facial expressions

2016· article· en· W2468573874 on OpenAlexafffund
Warren Adam Shier, Svetlana Yanushkevich

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsSupport vector machineComputer scienceOutlierArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Facial expressionData set

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an approach to pain expression classification based on Gabor energy filters with Support Vector Machines (SVMs), followed by analyzing the effects of training set variations on the systems classification rate. This approach is tested on the UNBC-McMaster Shoulder Pain Archive, which consists of spontaneous pain images, hand labelled using the Prkachin and Solomon Pain Intensity scale. In this paper, the subjects pain intensity level has been quantized into three disjoint groups: no pain, weak pain and strong pain. The results of experiments show that Gabor energy filters with SVMs provide comparable or better results to previous filter- based pain recognition methods, with precision rates of 74%, 30% and 78% for no pain, weak pain and strong pain, respectively. The study of effects of intra-class skew, or changing the number of images per subject, show that both completely removing and over-representing poor quality subjects in the training set has little effect on the overall accuracy of the system. This result suggests that poor quality subjects could be removed from the training set to save offline training time and that SVM is robust not only to outliers in training data, but also to significant amounts of poor quality data mixed into the training sets.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicEmotion and Mood RecognitionFrench-language works237,207