Perceptual tolerance neighborhood‐based similarity in content‐based image retrieval and classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the effectiveness and advantages of using perceptual tolerance neighbourhoods in tolerance space‐based image similarity measures and its application in content‐based image classification and retrieval. Design/methodology/approach The proposed method in this paper is based on a set‐theoretic approach, where an image is viewed as a set of local visual elements. The method also includes a tolerance relation that detects the similarity between pairs of elements, if the difference between corresponding feature vectors is less than a threshold 2 (0,1). Findings It is shown that tolerance space‐based methods can be successfully used in a complete content‐based image retrieval (CBIR) system. Also, it is shown that perceptual tolerance neighbourhoods can replace tolerance classes in CBIR, resulting in more accuracy and less computations. Originality/value The main contribution of this paper is the introduction of perceptual tolerance neighbourhoods instead of tolerance classes in a new form of the Henry‐Peters tolerance‐based nearness measure (tNM) and a new neighbourhood‐based tolerance‐covering nearness measure (tcNM). Moreover, this paper presents a side – by – side comparison of the tolerance space based methods with other published methods on a test dataset of images.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".