MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1522236212 · doi:10.1109/ccece.1995.526674

Extraction of shape elements in low-level processing for image understanding systems

2002· article· en· W1522236212 on OpenAlexaff
Maciej Macieszczak, M. Omair Ahmad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceShape analysis (program analysis)Computer visionComputer scienceObject (grammar)Boundary (topology)MathematicsGeometric shapeEdge detectionImage processingImage (mathematics)GeometryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extraction of shape elements from images is one of the most important tasks in scene analysis systems. In the approach presented in this paper the extraction of shape elements is based on the polygonal decomposition of the interior of the object in the scene and on the description of its boundaries (edges). The interior decomposition is done using squared polygons (prime components). The boundaries of the object are determined using a modified Sobel operator. After the decomposition of the interior of the object and detecting its boundaries, a discrete set of points representing the edges and coordinates of the prime components is processed by a nonlinear algorithm. The purpose of this preprocessing is to remove the discontinuities and to produce a discrete skeleton of the object. The final stage of the extraction is to transform the discrete skeleton of the object into its shape description (shape descriptor). This process is carried out by matching the B-spline curves to the whole discreet skeleton of the object. The resulting shape descriptor of the object is composed of a set of extracted shape elements (set of B-spline curves) and an interrelation among them.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.175 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207