MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3178681001 · doi:10.3390/s21144713

Physical Activity Recognition Based on a Parallel Approach for an Ensemble of Machine Learning and Deep Learning Classifiers

2021· article· en· W3178681001 on OpenAlexafffund
Mariem Abid, Amal Khabou, Youssef Ouakrim, Hugo Watel, Safouene Chemcki, Amar Mitiche, Amel Benazza‐Benyahia, Neila Mezghani

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité TÉLUQ
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsActivity recognitionWearable computerComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningFeature engineeringAccelerometerClassifier (UML)Wearable technologyFeature (linguistics)Deep learningEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human activity recognition (HAR) by wearable sensor devices embedded in the Internet of things (IOT) can play a significant role in remote health monitoring and emergency notification to provide healthcare of higher standards. The purpose of this study is to investigate a human activity recognition method of accrued decision accuracy and speed of execution to be applicable in healthcare. This method classifies wearable sensor acceleration time series data of human movement using an efficient classifier combination of feature engineering-based and feature learning-based data representation. Leave-one-subject-out cross-validation of the method with data acquired from 44 subjects wearing a single waist-worn accelerometer on a smart textile, and engaged in a variety of 10 activities, yielded an average recognition rate of 90%, performing significantly better than individual classifiers. The method easily accommodates functional and computational parallelization to bring execution time significantly down.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207