MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978387158 · doi:10.4018/jitr.2008100105

A Unified Approach To Fractal Dimensions

2008· article· en· W1978387158 on OpenAlexafffund
Witold Kinsner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Information Technology Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesMcMaster University
KeywordsFractalFractal dimensionComputer scienceFractal analysisFractal transformFractal dimension on networksTheoretical computer scienceStatistical physicsAlgorithmMathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceImage processingImage compressionMathematical analysisImage (mathematics)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many scientific papers treat the diversity of fractal dimensions as mere variations on either the same theme or a single definition. There is a need for a unified approach to fractal dimensions for there are fundamental differences between their definitions. This paper presents a new description of three essential classes of fractal dimensions based on: (1) morphology, (2) entropy, and (3) transforms, all unified through the generalized-entropy-based Rényi fractal dimension spectrum. It discusses practical algorithms for computing 15 different fractal dimensions representing the classes. Although the individual dimensions have already been described in the literature, the unified approach presented in this paper is unique in terms of (1) its progressive development of the fractal dimension concept, (2) similarity in the definitions and expressions, (3) analysis of the relation between the dimensions, and (4) their taxonomy. As a result, a number of new observations have been made, and new applications discovered. Of particular interest are behavioral processes (such as dishabituation), irreversible and birth-death growth phenomena (e.g., diffusion-limited aggregates (DLAs), dielectric discharges, and cellular automata), as well as dynamical non-stationary transient processes (such as speech and transients in radio transmitters), multi-fractal optimization of image compression using learned vector quantization with Kohonen’s self-organizing feature maps (SOFMs), and multi-fractal-based signal denoising.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Information Technology ResearchSame topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207