MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An automatic method for identifying appropriate gradient magnitude for 3D boundary detection of confocal image stacks

2006· article· en· W1978998928 on OpenAlex
Frank Guan, Yiyu Cai, Y. T. Lee, Michał Opas

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

VenueJournal of Microscopy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDivergence theoremBoundary (topology)Magnitude (astronomy)Edge detectionMeasure (data warehouse)Divergence (linguistics)Computer scienceFunction (biology)Image (mathematics)Image processingArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmComputer visionMathematicsPhysicsMathematical analysisData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gradients play an important role in 2D image processing. Many edge detection algorithms are gradient-based. We are interested in 3D boundary detection which can be considered as an extension of 2D edge detection in 3D space. In this paper, an algorithm to automatically and quantitatively measure the suitability of gradient magnitudes in detection of 3D boundary points of confocal image stacks is presented. A Measurement Function is defined to evaluate the suitability of each gradient magnitude chosen to be the threshold for 3D boundary detection. The application of Gauss's Divergence Theorem provides a solution to calculate the Measurement Function numerically. The gradient magnitude at which the maximum of the Measurement Function is achieved can be utilized as the most appropriate threshold for gradient-based boundary detection and other operations like volume visualization.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.351 · 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