MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976626555 · doi:10.1109/ictai.2006.66

Improving the Graph-Based Image Segmentation Method

2006· article· en· W1976626555 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings - International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, TAI · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage segmentationComputer sciencePreprocessorScale-space segmentationSegmentation-based object categorizationArtificial intelligenceSegmentationComputer visionGraphImage textureImage (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Theoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sensor devices are widely used for monitoring purposes. Image mining techniques are commonly employed to extract useful knowledge from the image sequences taken by sensor devices. Image segmentation is the first step of image mining. Due to the limited resources of the sensor devices, we need time and space efficient methods of image segmentation. In this paper, we propose an improvement to the graph-based image segmentation method already described in the literature and considered as the most effective method with satisfactory segmentation results. This is the preprocessing step of our online image mining approach. We contribute to the method by re-defining the internal difference used to define the property of the components and the threshold function, which is the key element to determine the size of the components. The conducted experiments demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of the adjusted method

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.260 · 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