MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502889234

Proceedings of the 1st ACM international conference on Multimedia information retrieval

2008· article· en· W1502889234 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRelevance (law)MultimediaSearch engine indexingDigital libraryRelevance feedbackWorld Wide WebVariety (cybernetics)Information retrievalImage retrievalArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.283
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