Ontology evolution for personalised and adaptive activity recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ontology‐based knowledge‐driven activity recognition (AR) models play a vital role in realm of Internet of Things (IoTs). However, these models suffer the shortcomings of static nature, inability of self‐evolution, and lack of adaptivity. Also, AR models cannot be made comprehensive enough to cater all the activities and smart home inhabitants may not be restricted to only those activities contained in AR model. So, AR models may not rightly recognise or infer new activities. Here, a framework has been proposed for dynamically capturing the new knowledge from activity patterns to evolve behavioural changes in AR model (i.e. ontology based model). This ontology‐based framework adapts by learning the specialised and extended activities from existing user‐performed activity patterns. Moreover, it can identify new activity patterns previously unknown in AR model, adapt the new properties in existing activity models and enrich ontology model by capturing change representation to enrich ontology model. The proposed framework has been evaluated comprehensively over the metrics of accuracy, statistical heuristics, and Kappa coefficient. A well‐known dataset named DAMSH has been used for having an empirical insight into the effectiveness of proposed framework that shows a significant level of accuracy for AR models.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".