MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980604989 · doi:10.1109/tmm.2005.846796

Image retrieval based on histogram of fractal parameters

2005· article· en· W1980604989 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Multimedia · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLuminanceHistogramImage retrievalArtificial intelligenceScalingFractalSearch engine indexingOffset (computer science)Pattern recognition (psychology)Fractal analysisFractal compressionImage textureImage processingFractal dimensionMathematicsImage (mathematics)Image compression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Image indexing and retrieval techniques are important for efficient management of visual databases. These techniques are generally developed based on the associated compression techniques. In the fractal domain, luminance offset and contrast scaling parameter are typically used as the fractal indices. However, luminance offset and contrast scaling parameter are strongly correlated. In this paper, we prove that range block mean and contrast scaling parameters are independent. Based on this independence, we propose four statistical indices for efficient image retrieval. In addition, we propose an efficient hierarchical indexing strategy based on the de and ac component analysis. Experimental results on a database of 416 texture images, created by decomposing 26 images, indicate that the proposed indices significantly improve the retrieval rate, compared to other retrieval methods.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.244 · 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