Proceedings of the 1st ACM international conference on Multimedia information retrieval
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Welcome to the 1st International ACM Conference on Multimedia Information Retrieval (MIR2008) held in Vancouver, Canada from October 30-31st, 2008. The goal of MIR is to illuminate new paradigms, theories, and insights in the area of multimedia information retrieval. Topics of special interest included exploration of media archives; interfaces for multimedia exploration; indexing and search of multimedia data: digital life experience analysis and retrieval; video surveillance browsing and retrieval; learning and relevance feedback in multimedia retrieval; and diverse applications in culture, society, and science. In the past decade there have been a wide variety of relatively small workshop activities from several ACM Special Interest Groups (SIGs) which were related to multimedia retrieval. The workshops delved into diverse questions involving digital life and lifebits, video surveillance and analysis of human activity, exploration of media archives, etc. This year we have attempted to cluster the disparate activities to create this conference. Last year, the combined MIR related workshop activities from ACM SIGs had less than 120 full paper submissions. However, this year we received 308 unique paper submissions of which 262 full papers were selected by the organizing committee for the double-blind peer review process. Based upon the peer reviews of the program committee, 21 percent or 56 papers were accepted for the research track of the conference including both oral and poster presentations. Many conferences do not have a best paper award because comparing two (or more) excellent papers could involve the old "apples vs. oranges" questions. Is a great theory paper better than a great application paper? To avoid such subjective issues we decided it would be relevant to take note of the papers which were considered to be excellent or outstanding by the program committee. This means that there could potentially be many excellent papers, each in a different way and that we would not have to select one as the best paper. This year we decided to archive as a citation the papers which received two or more outstanding ratings from the program committee. This was not a competitive process, nor an award, but more of a record of which papers the program committee considered to be exceptional. Furthermore, future generations will be able to look back on this proceedings and study how the papers were perceived by history.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle