Bidirectional Residual LSTM-based Human Activity Recognition
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
The Residual Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) deep learning approach is attracting attension of many researchers due to its efficiency when trained on high dimensional datasets. Nowadays, Human Activity Recognition (HAR) has come with enormous challenges that have to be addressed. In addressing such a problem, one can think of developing an application that can help the elderly people as an assistant when it works in collaboration with other timely technologies such as wearable devices with the help of IoT. Many research works are using a standard dataset in evaluating their proposed method in this regard. The dataset comes with its own challenge such as imbalanced classes. In this work, we propose to apply different machine learning techniques to address the specified problems and the method is validated on a standard dataset. To validate the proposed method, we evaluated using different standard metrics such as classification accuracy, precision, recall, f1-score, and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. The proposed method achieves an Area Under Curve (AUC) of 100%, 97.66% of accuracy, 91.59% precision,  93.75% of recall and 92.66% of F1-score respectively.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| 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