Comparative Analysis of Convolution Neural Network Models for Continuous Indian Sign Language Classification
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 of continuous sign language is essential for development of a sign language to spoken language translator. In this paper, classification of continuously signed sentences from the Indian Sign Language is considered using data from one inertial measurement unit placed on each hand of the signer. The recorded accelerometer and gyroscope data are used in tracking the position of hand in three-dimension, which are used as input to the classifier. The time-LeNet and multi-channel deep convolutional neural network (MC-DCNN) are employed for classification of sentences from raw position data of both hands. Moreover, a modified time-LeNet architecture is proposed to address the issue of over-fitting observed in the time-LeNet. The three models are compared for performance in terms of model complexity, loss and classification accuracies. MC-DCNN has large number of trainable parameters and provides an overall accuracy of 83.94%, while time-LeNet yields an average accuracy of 79.70%. The modified time-LeNet yields a classification accuracy of 81.62 % with just sixteenth of trainable parameters as compared to MC-DCNN.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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