MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086556267 · doi:10.3390/jimaging6090095

Deep Learning-Based Crowd Scene Analysis Survey

2020· review· en· W3086556267 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Imaging · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMemorial University of NewfoundlandOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMetric (unit)Artificial intelligenceCrowd psychologyBreakoutCrowd simulationDeep learningTrack (disk drive)Convolutional neural networkComputer visionMachine learningComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, our world witnessed major events that attracted a lot of attention towards the importance of automatic crowd scene analysis. For example, the COVID-19 breakout and public events require an automatic system to manage, count, secure, and track a crowd that shares the same area. However, analyzing crowd scenes is very challenging due to heavy occlusion, complex behaviors, and posture changes. This paper surveys deep learning-based methods for analyzing crowded scenes. The reviewed methods are categorized as (1) crowd counting and (2) crowd actions recognition. Moreover, crowd scene datasets are surveyed. In additional to the above surveys, this paper proposes an evaluation metric for crowd scene analysis methods. This metric estimates the difference between calculated crowed count and actual count in crowd scene videos.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.316 · 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