MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382395242 · doi:10.18280/ts.400326

An Examination Monocular Vision Gaze Point Tracking under the Theory of 'Machines Displacing Workers' in the Philosophy of Technology

2023· article· en· W4382395242 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haijun Zhou, Wei Chen, Zimin Lin, Ruiyang Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGazeComputer visionPoint (geometry)Artificial intelligenceMonocularTracking (education)Monocular visionComputer scienceCognitive sciencePsychologyHuman–computer interactionMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the continuous development of technology, we have the opportunity to quantitatively study the internal behaviors of personnel, such as attention, in a suitable way, in order to better solve the "machine compensation" for workers and achieve the development of human-machine fusion.An exploration of how varying lighting conditions directly affect the eyes and, by extension, the individual's attention has been undertaken in this study.Image sensors capture the subject's eye movements during task participation, with the location of the eye's (pupil's) center aiding in gaze point recognition and facilitating the quantification of attention.A quantifiable model of "lighting-attention" has been developed through controlled lighting conditions and replicable experimental circumstances, thereby studying the alteration of attention under different lighting and road conditions.An initial calibration of a monocular vision gaze tracking system was achieved with two commercialgrade eye trackers and calibration software, achieving a precision level of 2 cm.Nine college students aged 20-21, divided into male and female control test groups, exhibited similar attention characteristics under various lighting conditions.Overall, a negative correlation between illumination intensity and attention is observed when exceeding a certain threshold.On average, female participants maintained higher attention levels for longer durations.The efficacy of the model proposed in this study has been proven through a series of tests, providing a quantifiable reference for the mechanisms influencing attention.So it can provide the basis for the study of the benefits of factory workers.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207