MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201550731 · doi:10.14569/ijacsa.2021.0120902

Monitoring Indoor Activity of Daily Living using Thermal Imaging: A Case Study

2021· preprint· en· W3201550731 on OpenAlexaff
H.M. Ahmed, Bessam Abdulrazak

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivities of daily livingComputer scienceIdentification (biology)Assisted livingInternet of ThingsReal-time computingDependency (UML)Field (mathematics)Stability (learning theory)Artificial intelligenceEnvironmental scienceHuman–computer interactionComputer visionMachine learningInternet privacyPsychologyEcologyMathematicsGerontologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monitoring indoor activities of daily living (ADLs) of a person is subjected to dependency on sensor type, power supply stability, and connectivity stability without mentioning artifacts introduced by the person himself. Multiple challenges have to be overcome in this field, such as; detecting the precise spatial location of the person, and estimating vital signs like an individual’s average temperature. Privacy is another domain of the problem to be thought of with care. Identifying the person’s posture without a camera is another challenge. Posture identification is a key in assisting detection of a person’s fall. Thermal imaging could be a proper solution for most of the mentioned challenges. It provides monitoring both the person’s average temperature and spatial location while maintaining privacy. In this research, an IoT system for monitoring an indoor ADL using thermal sensor array (TSA) is proposed. Three classes of ADLs are introduced, which are daily activity, sleeping activity and no-activity respectively. Estimating person average temperature using TSAs is introduced as well in this paper. Results have shown that the three activity classes can be identified as well as the person’s average temperature during day and night. The person’s spatial location can be determined while his/her privacy is maintained as well.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Advanced Computer Science and ApplicationsSame topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207