MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897843589 · doi:10.1109/ijcnn.2018.8489391

Single Channel Continuous Wave Doppler Radar for Differentiating Types of Human Activity

2018· article· en· W2897843589 on OpenAlexafffund
Julio J. Valdés, Zachary Baird, Sreeraman Rajan, Miodrag Bolić

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCarleton UniversityNational Research Council Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRadarComputer scienceDoppler radarChannel (broadcasting)Doppler effectArtificial intelligenceSIGNAL (programming language)Random forestPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In real life applications, it is crucial to monitor the different kinds of human activity without interfering with their regular occupations. Contactless physiological monitoring using radars is a valuable tool, but typically it is performed when the human subjects are immobile. This paper analyzes single channel Continuous Wave (CW) Doppler radar signals in relation to three levels of human activity: i) Sedentary and still, ii) Sedentary and moving and iii) Walking. A combination of computational intelligence techniques (GammaTest, neural networks, random forest and genetic algorithms) was used for assessing the predictive ability of 43 features derived from the radar return signal, as well as of subsets of them, which were composed of highly predictive attributes. It is shown that with about one half the number of attributes it is possible to achieve high levels of classification accuracy, in some cases improving false negative ratios. While several attributes were completely irrelevant and noisy, others were required by discriminating each of the classes. There are attributes required by certain classes in particular and there are others associated to the distinction of classes with subtle differences.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207