Yoga dataset: A resource for computer vision-based analysis of Yoga asanas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The practice of yoga has been shown to have numerous benefits for both physical and mental health, and it has gained popularity worldwide as a form of exercise and relaxation. However, yoga postures can be complex and challenging, especially for beginners who may struggle with proper alignment and positioning. To address this issue, there is a need for a dataset of different yoga postures that can be used to develop computer vision algorithms capable of recognizing and analyzing yoga poses. For this we created the image and video datasets of different yoga asana using the mobile device Samsung Galaxy M30s. The dataset contains images and videos of effective (right) and ineffective postures for 10 Yoga asana, with a total of 11,344 images and 80 videos. The image dataset is organized into 10 subfolders, each with "Effective (right) Steps" and "Ineffective (wrong) Steps" folders. The video dataset has 4 videos for each posture, with 40 videos demonstrating effective (right) postures and 40 demonstrating ineffective (wrong) postures. This dataset benefits app developers, machine learning researchers, Yoga instructors, and practitioners, who can use it to develop apps, train computer vision algorithms, and improve their practice. We strongly believe that this type of dataset would provide the foundation for the development of new technologies that can help individuals improve their Yoga practice, such as posture detection and correction tools or personalized recommendations based on individual abilities and needs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".