MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234254997 · doi:10.1109/icpr.2004.1333748

Morphological analysis of spatio-temporal patterns for the segmentation of cyclic human activities

2004· article· en· W4234254997 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. Yazdi, A.B. Albu, Robert Bergevin

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 2004. ICPR 2004. · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAperiodic graphSegmentationSimilarity (geometry)Artificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Matrix (chemical analysis)Image segmentationGround truthFrame (networking)Data miningComputer visionMathematicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work describes a new method for the temporal segmentation of human actions based on a 2D inter-frame similarity plot. This similarity matrix contains relevant information for the analysis of cyclic and symmetric human activities, where the motion performed during the first semi-cycle is repeated in the opposite direction during the second semi-cycle. Thus, the pattern associated to aperiodic activity in the similarity matrix is rectangular and decomposable into elementary units. We propose a morphology-based approach for the detection and analysis of activity patterns. Pattern extraction is further used for the detection of the temporal boundaries of the cyclic symmetric activities. Result evaluation approach is based on a statistical estimation of the ground truth segmentation and on a confidence ratio for temporal segmentations. Research reported in This work was supported by a discovery grant of the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 2004. ICPR 2004.Same topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207