MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386951719 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2023.3316449

In-Vehicle Monitoring by Radar: A Review

2023· review· en· W4386951719 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsRadarComputer scienceField (mathematics)Focus (optics)Real-time computingEngineeringComputer securityTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proliferation of vehicles and subsequent increase in traffic accidents has led to a heightened focus on driving safety. As a result, various researchers have been examining ways to enhance driving safety in daily life by implementing smart car technology. In-vehicle sensing utilizing radar technology has emerged as a leading method for monitoring the driver’s health, emotions, and attention, owing to its numerous advantages over traditional sensors, including the ability to detect subjects through non-metallic surfaces and the inherent privacy-preserving mechanisms. In recent years, in-vehicle sensing through radar has undergone significant advancements. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive survey of the applications, system level design, and signal processing of in-vehicle sensing through radar. The published works in this field are categorized into three main groups: occupancy detection, gesture recognition and occupant status monitoring. The paper will discuss the highlighted works and their respective advantages and limitations in terms of applications.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.272 · 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