MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005013039 · doi:10.1145/1101389.1101443

Integrating procedural textures with replicated image editing

2005· article· en· W2005013039 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceImage editingAutomationContext (archaeology)Image (mathematics)Computer graphics (images)Texture (cosmology)Texture synthesisWorkloadSoftwareImage manipulationComputer visionImage textureArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionImage processingProgramming languageEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Image editing software is often characterized by a seemingly endless array of toolbars, filters, transformations and layers. But recently, a counter trend has emerged in the field of image editing which aims to reduce the user's workload through semi-automation. This alternate style of interaction has been made possible through advances in directed texture synthesis and computer vision. and it is in this context that we have developed our texture editing system that allows complex operations to be performed on images with minimal user interaction. This is achieved by utilizing the inherent self-similarity of image textures to replicate intended manipulations globally. In this paper, we expand the capabilities of replicated image editing by integrating procedural texture generation.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.215 · 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