Classification of Doppler radar reflections as preprocessing for breathing rate monitoring
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classification is presented as a pre‐processing step in this study. The state of the subject is classified as the unmoving state with normal breathing (normal breathing class), unmoving state with no breathing (stop breathing class) or the state when the subject is moving (erratic signal class) before breathing estimation algorithms are applied. Estimation algorithms may be applied to obtain breathing rate if normal breathing class is detected or alarms may be generated if stop breathing is detected, and fine‐grained classification of activities may be pursued if the erratic signal is detected. Experiments were performed using a single‐channel pulse‐modulated continuous wave radar with three subjects for a total of 135 min. In each experiment, the subject was continuously monitored for 15 min and the subject performed activities that resulted in a signal that belonged to one of the three classes. Besides extracting a feature that assessed the distribution of energy of the signal in the frequency domain, a novel nonlinear time series feature extraction method based on the higher‐dimensional embedding technique was applied to ascertain periodicity of the reflected signal. Bayes classifier was used to classify each 5‐s segment of radar returns. A 30‐fold cross validation resulted in 97% of overall classification accuracy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it