Target Detection in Video Images Using HOG-Based Cascade Classifier
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detecting small objects using computer vision is a challenging task due to their small size in the image and therefore the lack of features when describing them. In this paper, a computer was trained to detect three small balls using 20 levels of the AdaBoost cascade classifier. The features of the balls in each level are described using the HOG feature descriptor. Three balls were recorded in practice at various distances (d = 2, 3, 4, ..., 10 m) from the camera and the targets (balls). The frames are then taken from the videos and resized using five magnification factors (RS = 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9) to make the balls seem as they should. According to the results, the detection rate of balls at all distances was 80% when using the magnification factor RS = 1, 90% when using the magnification factor RS = 3, 5, and 7, and 100% when using the magnification factor RS = 9. The suggested approach was also used in calculating the height and width of the detected balls. The overall results indicated that the height and width of the balls dwindle as the distance between the camera and the targets increases.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it