MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171707793 · doi:10.22215/etd/2016-11435

Protocols for Evaluation of an Interactive Video Tracking System Utilizing Face Recognition

2016· dissertation· en· W3171707793 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Wong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBiometric Identification and Security
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTracking (education)Facial motion captureArtificial intelligenceFacial recognition systemComputer visionPrecision and recallVideo trackingTracking systemFace (sociological concept)Protocol (science)Active appearance modelFace detectionPattern recognition (psychology)Video processingImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Search and Retrieve prototype was developed as an interactive video tracking prototype to find and follow targets in a multi-camera surveillance system using face recognition. The overall potential benefits of using interactive face recognition for video tracking are unknown. We developed an evaluation protocol for the Search and Retrieve program using human-computer interaction and video tracking metrics. The protocol included three tracking cases: manual tracking, automated tracking using face recognition, and interactive tracking using both. We demonstrate that adding the operator's skill through interaction to the face recognition tracking present in the Search and Retrieve program can measurably increase recall by an average of 8 times for automated tracking and 39% over manual tracking in a limited time span of 20 minutes and without any prior training of the system for the user. The system's precision remains constant over the three cases.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBiometric Identification and SecurityFrench-language works237,207