MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557661846 · doi:10.1109/iemcon.2016.7746287

Recursive Bayesian tracking for smart elderly living

2016· article· en· W2557661846 on OpenAlexaff
Shahram Payandeh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)Home automationArtificial intelligenceRecursive Bayesian estimationDynamic Bayesian networkWearable computerSet (abstract data type)Bayesian probabilityCloud computingMachine learningSoftware deploymentReal-time computingEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Being able to monitor movements and activities of the elderly in a smart living environment can offer an approach for detecting any on-set of anomalies. These smart living dwellings can be equipped with various networked ambient sensors, wearable sensing technologies and cloud-robotics. Detection of any such on-set of anomalies in elderly movements and activities can further be used to determine the state of mental health of the elderly for example related to dementia or Alzheimer. There are two mains challenges associated with the deployment such sensor network in the dwelling of elderly. The main challenge is in the processing of the sensed information in order to ensure the privacy of individuals. The next big challenge is the robustness of tracking algorithm in the presence of lost or occluded sensed data. It has been shown that the recursive Bayesian approach can offer a suitable framework for tracking targets with the maneuvering trajectories which follows a non-linear behavior and non-Gaussian distribution. This paper presents an overview of recursive Bayesian framework which can be used as a part of tracking environment in the smart living environment of elderly. Through step-by-step development, the paper highlights various features of the method which can be adapted in order to reduce various computational issues associated with the implementation of this framework.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207