Detecting Proper Mask Usage with Soft Attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proper mask usage in public areas has been shown to be critical in the efforts to reduce infection spread in circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In this paper, we propose mask usage detection approach based on deep learning: a Mask Regional-Convolutional Neural Network (Mask R-CNN) that provides segmentation of faces and masks, and another CNN using a novel Soft Attention unit to detect the correctness of the mask usage. We also provide a small instance segmented subset of the Masked Faces (MAFA) dataset for instance segmentation problems. We use the Mask R-CNN to provide instance segmentations of faces and face masks to the visual relationship detection CNN and predict improperly and properly worn face masks. Various CNN architectures such as ResNet50 were tested and compared to determine its effectiveness for the above task. We evaluate the CNN architectures on accuracy, precision, recall, and specificity of detecting properly worn masks. The best performing network was determined to be the ResNet50V2 architecture with 76.27% accuracy, 84.76% precision, 74.38% recall, and 79.20% specificity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".