MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323845265 · doi:10.18280/isi.280103

A Study and Analysis on Pedestrian Detection and Tracking Through Rear-View Images

2023· article· en· W4323845265 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Damineni Sree Lakshmi, Adusumilli Divya, Emandi Sreedevi, Ravikiran Kolagani, Prasanthi Gottumukkala, Akhilnath Muddana

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedestrianComputer visionPedestrian detectionTracking (education)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer graphics (images)Transport engineeringEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As indicated by the Transportation Research and Industry Prevention Programme (TRIPP)'s Road Safety in India Report-2020, 33% of the accidents victims (deaths) are pedestrians.Heavy vehicles as well as cars are not able track pedestrian's movements on time.Most of the Children met with the accidents due to vehicle reversing.This problem motivates to track pedestrian through rear-view in heavy vehicles as well as for cars.Certain machine learning and deep learning approaches will best adapt to coping with the particular problems of rear-view pedestrian detection.In this work a literature survey of pedestrian detection and tracking research methodology and their constraints are discussed briefly.Most of the camera applications mainly concentrate on picture visibility and tracking.If the pedestrian detection application makes as inbuilt technique, then automatically so many accidents especially of children can be avoided.This pedestrian application mainly used to track the pedestrian movements while he or she is moving on heavy traffic roads and highways or while taking vehicle reverse by using cameras which were fixed on vehicles and make alerts.Such that camera can get more extracted features and helps the future applications.In this research paper a brief literature review is placed according to various researchers along with their techniques.And also compare the performance measures such as accuracy, sensitivity, false alarm rate and detection rate.These experimental results are out performance the methodology and differentiated with present technology.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIngénierie des systèmes d informationSame topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207