MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322492046 · doi:10.4028/p-oswg04

Sign Language Detection Using Action Recognition

2023· article· en· W4322492046 on OpenAlex
Nishan Dutta, M. Indumathy

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in science and technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHand Gesture Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSign languageGestureComputer scienceGesture recognitionSign (mathematics)Task (project management)Meaning (existential)Action (physics)Key (lock)Position (finance)Human–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingSpeech recognitionLinguisticsEngineeringComputer securityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sign language detection technique is a part of technology which is of extreme importance to the society. Sign languages is used by deaf and dumb people who are unable to communicate directly using sound since they lack the ability to produce or recognize sound waves which enable us to communicate easily. The proposed project aims in decreasing the distance between the sign language detection techniques which only focuses on detecting the meaning of letters like ASL and not actions provided by the users. The project detects sign languages by using key holes as the position locator and then trains the system to detect accordingly. Keyholes are used to find the position of gesture to use LSTM throughout coaching of the information. Experimental results demonstrate the efficaciousness of the planned methodology in sign language detection task

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.297 · 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