MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006655378 · doi:10.1080/01969722.2012.732797

QUANTIFYING NEARNESS IN VISUAL SPACES

2012· article· en· W2006655378 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

VenueCybernetics & Systems · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)Similarity (geometry)Similarity measureComputer scienceImage (mathematics)Matching (statistics)Set (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceCyberneticsEarth mover's distancePattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsData miningStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cybernetic vision systems can be deployed in problem domains where the goal is to achieve results similar to those produced by humans. Fundamentally, these problems consist of evaluation of image content between sets of images. This article contrasts two theoretical frameworks for image comparison, namely, the semantic similarity approach used in the earth mover's distance (EMD) and the integrated region matching (IRM) similarity measure, with the tolerance nearness measure (tNM) based on near set theory. The contribution of this article is a comparison of the image similarity measures EMD, IRM, and tNM, as well as a signature-based approach to calculating the tolerance nearness measure.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.266 · 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