MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202070111 · doi:10.18280/ts.380402

Function to Flatten Gesture Data for Specific Feature Selection Methods to Improve Classification

2021· article· en· W3202070111 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marilu Cervantes Salgado, Raúl Pinto-Elías, Andrea Magadán-Salazar

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHand Gesture Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature selectionGestureComputer scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceFunction (biology)Feature (linguistics)Machine learningBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gestures are pieces of information with characteristics such as: multiple and chronologically linked samples with different length. The gesture characteristics mentioned before make classification, of this type of data, a challenging task. We studied the effects of flattening gesture data. We proposed a function to represent gestures in a flat format taking in consideration the evolution sense they possess. The function's main goal is to compare gestures intra class to spot differences. This function is described step by step and then its outcome is used as input to two feature selection methods (Bayesian network / Markov blanket and Logical Combinatorial to Pattern Recognition). After, with the subsets obtained, we trained Hidden Markov Models machines. We found that applying our methodology to gesture data, the subset of attributes obtained (feature selection) were able to classify with accuracies of 0.88 and 0.87 of a maximum of 0.90. The maximum accuracy was obtained from an exhaustive classification exercise we performed in order to compare our results. These findings suggest that our methodology can be applied over raw data (gesture data or any chronologically linked data) without the need of experts to transform data (i.e. feature extraction).

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.759

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicHand Gesture Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207