MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405209194 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.15674

Preliminary validation of Amped <scp>FIVE</scp> software for subject height estimation

2024· article· en· W4405209194 on OpenAlexaff
Rosdiazli Ibrahim, Eugene Liscio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGait Recognition and Analysis
Canadian institutionsAdvantage Forensics (Canada)Trent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftwarePhotogrammetryComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceProjection (relational algebra)MetrologyComputer visionStatisticsMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Single view metrology poses a persistent challenge in extracting accurate quantitative information from individual images or video frames within the realm of forensic video analysis. Methods such as reverse projection, projective geometry, and photogrammetry have been used in the past with success but require validation and understanding of the limitations of each method. This study aims to conduct a preliminary validation of the subject height estimation feature in Amped FIVE software, which relies on the principles of single view metrology. A group of 14 individuals assumed an upright posture at distances of 2.4 m, 5.4 m, and 10 m away from two security cameras with different resolutions 4k (3840 × 2160) and HD (1920 × 1080). Prior to recording, participants' heights were measured but were not provided to the researcher in this study until after the analysis was completed. A height scale with clearly marked black and white graduations was used as a control. Height estimations were subsequently obtained using the Measure 3D tool in Amped FIVE software. On average, the overall error was found to be approximately ± 1.3 cm with a standard deviation of 0.9 cm. This study shows that Amped FIVE can provide accurate height estimates in a controlled environment. Future work should be done to test more difficult scenarios in less-than-ideal conditions.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicGait Recognition and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207