MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004772111 · doi:10.1145/3374920.3374982

Heart Waves: A Heart Rate Feedback System Using Water Sounds

2020· article· en· W3004772111 on OpenAlexaff
Omid Ettehadi, Lee Jones, Kate Hartman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityOntario College of Art and Design
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart rateComputer scienceWearable computerHuman–computer interactionBiometric dataReal-time computingWearable technologyWork (physics)Heart rate monitorSimulationBiometricsComputer securityEmbedded systemEngineeringMedicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wearable devices of today help people track and monitor their biometric data such as heart rate. While the tracked data can help inform people of their health, many find that it adds unnecessary anxieties in the way the feedback is provided. In the case of college students, they spend most of their time in a stressful environment, leading them to an increase in the risk of mental health issues. To help with this issue, we present Heart Waves, an experimental ambient feedback system that tracks heart rate and uses water sound to provide feedback in a stressful work environment. Heart Waves uses the sound of falling water to create a relaxing atmosphere to help ease any stress they are going through. As the user's heart rate goes up, the flow of water increases, and as their heart rate goes down, the flow rate of water decreases. The purpose of this project is to automatize the processing of heart rate data so that the user does not have to analyze the data and create an ambient feedback system that adjusts to their heart rate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207