Capture and Recognition of Bead Weaving Activities using Hand Skeletal Data and an LSTM Deep Neural Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several factors lead to the extinction of tangible cultural heritage, such as globalization, urbanization, intention and accidental neglect, modernization, mechanization, limited usage, migration, and the minimization of skilled practitioners/craft educators and owners. We, the Gesture and Form group, aim to preserve the bead weaving craft, which plays an essential role in culture. We aim to use Augmented reality (AR) and Machine Learning (ML) to preserve this craft. Preservation in this context means passing the technique from one generation to the other, even without a skilled craftsperson. To achieve this, we aim to use an LSTM deep neural network to classify micro activities in the Peyote stitch with the hand skeletal data from the Microsoft Hololens 2. In this paper, we present our preliminary work and a workflow of the ML process involved with a mini project we called "Thumbs-up gesture classification." Using a single subject participant for the gesture classification, we achieve 100% accuracy on the training and test set, and new data from the device. Finally, we present a future direction for our research.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".