MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885521921 · doi:10.1049/joe.2018.8301

Multi‐feature consultation model for human action recognition in depth video sequence

2018· article· en· W2885521921 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSequence (biology)Artificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)Field (mathematics)Action (physics)Identification (biology)Feature vectorAction recognitionPattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionVariety (cybernetics)MathematicsClass (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the field of computer vision research, the research on human action recognition of depth video sequence is an important research direction. Herein, considering the characteristics of temporal and spatial depth video sequence, the authors propose a framework of the consultation model of several action sequence features to solve the classification problem in‐depth video sequence. According to the characteristics of the 3D human action space, a variety of action sequence feature data is obtained, and then these data is projected to three coordinate planes, the acquired fusion features are used to train the consultation model, and finally the model is validated through the data. The authors have achieved good results by comparing the two publicly available datasets with the other methods. Experimental results demonstrate that the model performs well in existing identification methods.

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.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.220 · 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