MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Automated 20-20-20 Timers Using Facial Detection and Facial Recognition

2023· article· en· W4387486534 on OpenAlexaff
Saumodip Das, Geetanjali Pal, Somsubhra Manna, Arnab Dhara, Anindya Sen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsHeritage College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimerComputer scienceReal-time computingArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionComputer hardwareComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes two automated 20-20-20 timers using facial detection and facial recognition respectively. Computer Vision Syndrome (CVS) is a common phenomenon these days, resulting in eye irritation and headaches. A possible prevention of CVS is adopting the 20-20-20 rule. Two types of 20-20-20 timer exist in the market, but both have scopes of improvement. While one type of timer needs to be manually set by the user like a stopwatch, the other type of timer detects the ON -screen time of monitors as a parameter. Both these models fail to detect whether the user is actually looking at the screen, and interrupt the work schedule of the users. The authors have developed a smart automated 20-20-20 timer that uses haar-cascade classifiers for detecting the face and accordingly adapt to the situation. This timer is able to detect the facial features in real time, and alert the user after 20 minutes of screen time. Furthermore, the authors have developed another smart 20-20-20 timer using YOLOv5s. This timer can recognise multiple users looking at the screen and run the timer independently for each person. While the haar-cascade enabled timer is preferred for homes and personal laptops, desktops and PCs; the YOLOv5s enabled timer is suited for offices, schools, colleges and libraries. This paper proposes an automated smart 20-20-20 timer system.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207