MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391127449 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc118-11

Human Behavior Recognition Based on CNN-LSTM Hybrid and Multi-Sensing Feature Information Fusion

2023· article· en· W4391127449 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceInformation fusionPattern recognition (psychology)FusionComputer scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To address the human activity recognition problem and its application in practical situations, a CNN-LSTM hybrid neural network model capable of automatically extracting sensor data features and memorizing temporal activity data is designed and improved by integrating CNN and gated recurrent units as a variant of RNN. A multi-channel spatiotemporal fusion network-based two-person interaction behavior recognition method is proposed for two-person skeletal sequential behavior recognition. Firstly, a viewpoint invariant feature extraction method is used to extract two-player skeleton features, then a two-layer cascaded spatiotemporal fusion network model is designed, and finally, a multi-channel spatiotemporal fusion network is used to learn multiple sets of two-player skeleton features separately to obtain multi-channel fusion features, and the fusion features are used to recognize the interaction behavior, and the weights are shared among the channels. Applying the algorithm in the paper to the UCF101 dataset for experiments, the accuracy of the two-person cross-object experiment can reach 96.42% and the accuracy of the cross-view experiment can reach 97.46%. The method in the paper shows better performance in two-player interaction behavior recognition compared to typical methods in this field.

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 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 score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.245 · 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