MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993125702 · doi:10.1109/crv.2014.54

N-Gram Based Image Representation and Classification Using Perceptual Shape Features

2014· article· en· W1993125702 on OpenAlexaff
Albina Mukanova, Qigang Gao, Gang Hu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Scale-invariant feature transformComputer visionAutomatic image annotationSupport vector machineContextual image classificationClassifier (UML)Image retrievalFeature extractionImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid growth of visual data processing and analysis applications, such as content based image retrieval, augmented reality, automated inspection and defect detection, medical image understanding, and remote sensing has made the problem of developing accurate and efficient image representation and classification methods one of the key research areas. This research proposes new higher-level perceptual shape features for image representation which are based on Gestalt principles of human vision. The concept of n-gram is adapted from text analysis as a grouping mechanism for coding global shape content of an image. The proposed perceptual shape features are translation, rotation, and scale invariant. Local shape features and n-gram grouping scheme are integrated together to create new Perceptual Shape Vocabulary (PSV). Different image representations based on PSVs with and without n-gram scheme are applied to image classification task using Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifier. The experimental evaluation results indicate that n-gram-based perceptual shape features can efficiently represent global shape information of an image, and augment the accuracy of image representation by low-level image features such as SIFT descriptors.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207