MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Effect of Activity Granularity on A Kitchen Activity Recognition System

2024· article· en· W4401808941 on OpenAlexaff
Majid Ghosian Moghaddam, Ali Asghar Nazari Shirehjini, Shervin Shirmohammadi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGranularityComputer scienceActivity recognitionArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Operating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kitchen activity recognition enables tailored advertising based on users' cooking habits and preferences, enhancing marketing relevance. Like any other human activity, the granularity of the kitchen activity that a sensor aims to recognize may affect the sensor's performance. This study aims to investigate the effect of activity granularity on the performance of a Wi-Fi-based human activity recognition (HAR) method in a kitchen context. For this purpose, first, we utilized an authentic kitchen with an ESP32 microcontroller as a WiFi transceiver and an iPhone 12 mini as a WiFi receiver. Then, we asked one user to perform three coarse-grained kitchen activities: filling an electric kettle with water and turning it on, stir-frying cubed potatoes, and taking several cans from the fridge and putting them on a cabinet. We gathered the Channel State Information (CSI) and Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) data from WiFi packets. Then, we designed and implemented a device-free HAR system by a combination of CSI and RSSI at the feature level and utilizing a 5-fold cross-validation to assess the performance of a voting-based hybrid classification method including support vector machine (SVM), linear discriminant analysis (LDA), and Gaussian Naïve Bayes (GNB). The proposed system achieved an average accuracy of 92.27% in the recognition of coarse-grained activities. We then repeated the same experiment for gathering the same data for three fine-grained activities: chopping, slicing, and French-fries cutting. The same HAR system achieved an average accuracy of 51.53%. The results indicate that a device-free HAR method that achieves a high recognition accuracy for coarse-grained activities cannot achieve a similarly high accuracy for fine-grained activities.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207