MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006651074

A Segmentation Method for Touching Italic Characters

2008· article· en· W2006651074 on OpenAlexaff
Yun Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHandwritten Text Recognition Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité du QuébecConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionScale-space segmentationPoint (geometry)Image segmentationPath (computing)Projection (relational algebra)Segmentation-based object categorizationPattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsAlgorithm
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Segmentation is an essential part of a recognition system. It is difficult to handle touching characters, especially for italic fonts. We present a method to achieve the accurate segmentation of touching italic characters. It is free of slant correction, so extra noises will not be introduced. We use slant projection and contour analysis to find the segmentation points. Then the shortest path approach is adopted for accurately locating the cut path of each candidate segmentation point. Based on dynamic programming, we can find the best segmentation result from those cut paths. By this method, we can improve the recognition rate on italic fonts. 1.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHandwritten Text Recognition TechniquesFrench-language works237,207