An Approach of Detecting the Age of a Human by Extracting the Face Parts and Applying the Hierarchical Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the key challenges that the computer vision is facing is the age prediction. A well efficient CNN is selected for age prediction by performing various CNN operations by taking the categories as age 40 and above age 40. The selected CNN method obtained a training accuracy of 100% at more than 100 epochs. Hence, 100 epochs is considered for training. At this, the validation accuracy achieved is 84.9%. Three kinds of age phases with an age gap of 20,10 and 5 are used to predict the age. The normal method results in very less accuracy. Hence a hierarchical method is formulated. Under the hierarchical method, CNN is trained to estimate the age gaps in decreasing order. Hence not a single classifier, a group of classifiers are used for testing the image. From traditional method to hierarchical method, the 20 age gap accuracy increased from 27% to above 60%, ten age gap increased from 12% to above 35%, and five age gap increased from 5.5% to above 21%. To improve further, the features of the face parts are derived and combined which improves the efficiency compared to normal method, but not good accuracy as Hierarchical method. The combination of hierarchical method along with the face feature extraction method results in a considerable improvement in accuracy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".