MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1549562141 · doi:10.1109/icdar.1997.620621

N-grams: a well-structured knowledge representation for recognition of graphical documents

2002· article· en· W1549562141 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Lank, Dorothea Blostein

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSketchRepresentation (politics)Domain (mathematical analysis)Variety (cybernetics)Domain knowledgeSymbol (formal)Knowledge representation and reasoningSketch recognitionArtificial intelligencen-gramGraphical modelInformation retrievalNatural language processingProgramming languageLanguage modelAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

N-grams are a well-structured knowledge representation that has proven useful in the recognition of textual documents. In this paper, we propose that n-grams can be extended to the domain of graphical documents as well. This has the advantage of providing a regular, easily-maintainable knowledge representation for local constraints, specifically symbol-interaction knowledge, in the graphical domain. To extend the definition of an n-gram from the textual to the graphical domain, we must resolve how to handle directional considerations, how to treat the variety of relations that can occur between image primitives, and how to treat multiple neighbours. We have implemented a prototype system for the application of n-gram knowledge to the recognition of sketch maps. Early results are encouraging. We look forward to further refining this system. N-grams appear to be a promising tool for representing spatial constraints in a form that is useful to the recognition of graphical documents.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207