MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586596788 · doi:10.1109/smc.2016.7844429

Optimized per-joint compression of hand motion data

2016· article· en· W2586596788 on OpenAlexaff
Antonio Carlos Furtado, Xinyao Sun, Anup Basu, Irene Cheng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Analysis and Summarization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceData compressionLossy compressionRedundancy (engineering)Motion captureComputer visionArtificial intelligenceJoint (building)Motion (physics)Quarter-pixel motionCompression (physics)Focus (optics)Motion compensationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motion data is quickly expanding its application scope, following the recent advancements in smart sensing technology. In particular, it has been shown to be helpful for objective measurement and assessment of surgical dexterity among users at different levels of training. The goal is to allow trainees to evaluate their performance based on a reference set of hand movements. Similar to other multimedia data types, recording motion can produce a substantial amount of data, some of which are redundant for the application. Compression methods aim to optimize storage and transmission of motion capture (MoCap) data by taking advantage of temporal and spatial correlation. Hand motion data is a special sub-type of MoCap and is the focus of many applications, where hand movement evaluation is important. In this paper, we propose a lossy but visually indifferent, compression method that exploits redundancy found in hand motion data. Since individual joint movements have different impacts on the motion sequence, our technique is designed to minimize the overall distortion by providing a per-joint compression. We are able to demonstrate that our approach offers a quantitative gain for different compression ratios, while preserving visual quality.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVideo Analysis and SummarizationFrench-language works237,207