MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sensors-Enabled Human State Monitoring System for Tactical Settings

2022· article· en· W4297098274 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Salvan, Alexandre Marois, Maëlle Kopf, Jean‐François Gagnon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsThales (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceState (computer science)Systems engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is potential great value in turning physiological and behavioral data into actionable information in tactical environments. However, the design of an appropriate system in terms of measurement accuracy, wearing comfort and technical feasibility, for instance for forces training in realistic conditions, therefore requires addressing multiple scientific and technical challenges. The current paper focuses on work realized to address four challenges identified in recent efforts in the development of an integrated wearable system. These four challenges pertain to: 1) Data management; 2) Wearable sensors; 3) Algorithms and models; and 4) Human factors considerations. Components were developed and integrated to tackle each of the four challenges and the integrated system was tested on participants during field trials. The system referred to “Readiness Evaluation: QUantified INdividuals” (REQUIN), offers a dashboard to visualize in real time the various metrics collected and calculated by the system, including metrics derived from wearable sensors and models. Results of the field trials are discussed in regard with the four challenges addressed in the paper and recommendations for further research are presented, including using alternative sensing technologies for blood oxygenation measures and improving the models’ specificity. This study represents a critical step in the integration of real-time sensing technologies for applications involving collective situation management and control.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringFrench-language works237,207