MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971784657 · doi:10.1117/12.410795

<title>Shading- and highlight-invariant color image segmentation using the MPC algorithm</title>

2000· article· en· W1971784657 on OpenAlexaff
Slawo Wesolkowski, Shoji Tominaga, R.D. Dony

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRGB color modelPixelSegmentationInvariant (physics)Artificial intelligenceAlgorithmImage segmentationShadingComputer scienceColor spaceMathematicsComputer visionMatrix similarityPattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)Computer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anew color image segmentation algorithm is presented in this paper. This algorithm is invariant to highlights and shading. This is accomplished in two steps. First, the average pixel intensity is removed form each RGB coordinate. This transformation mitigates the effects of highlights. Next, the Mixture of Principal Components algorithm is used to perform the segmentation. The MPC is implicitly invariant to shading due to the inner vector product or vector angle being used as similarity measure. Since the new coordinate system contains negative numbers, it is necessary to modify the MPC algorithm since in its original form it does not distinguish between positive and negative color space coordinates. Results on artificial and real images illustrate the effectiveness of the method. Finally, the use of the total within-cluster variance is investigated as possible criterion for selecting the number of clusters for the new algorithm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.009

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations15
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207