MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317039797 · doi:10.18280/ria.360613

Recognition of Hand Motion Trajectory Gestures for Novel Input Interfaces

2022· article· en· W4317039797 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Prashant Richhariya, Piyush Chauhan, Lalit Kane, Ashutosh Pasricha, Bhupesh Kumar Dewangan

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHand Gesture Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGestureBenchmark (surveying)Character (mathematics)Motion (physics)Word (group theory)TrajectorySIGNAL (programming language)Artificial intelligencePlan (archaeology)Computer visionFrame (networking)Sequence (biology)Human–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work addresses an example for dynamic hand signal acknowledgment by utilizing a Kinect V2. The projected plan takes oneself inspired motion (general media stream) as info, separates hand region and processes hand signal highlights, and uses these elements to perceive the motion. We projected free penmanship and our strategy remembers it progressively utilizing the proposed highlight portrayal. This proposed strategy utilizes an efficient fingertip acknowledgment approach and composing with the free hand the utilization of a fingertip. We verify our strategy on Kinect V2. On a dataset gathered from various clients, we accomplish an acknowledgment exactness of 98% for character acknowledgment. We likewise show the way that this framework can be stretched out for word list acknowledgment with solid execution and additionally arranged a dataset containing data frame of the moving video and fetching characters from the database a typical benchmark to manually written character acknowledgment utilizing understanding word and finding better accuracy through machine learning algorithm parameters.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicHand Gesture Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207