MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010810469 · doi:10.5566/ias.v30.p63-76

GENERALIZED FRACTAL TRANSFORMS AND SELF-SIMILARITY: RECENT RESULTS AND APPLICATIONS

2011· article· en· W2010810469 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueImage Analysis & Stereology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Dynamics and Fractals
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFractalFractal transformFractal compressionMathematicsGrayscaleSelf-similarityFractal analysisPixelImage (mathematics)Image processingImage compressionAlgorithmPure mathematicsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMathematical analysisFractal dimensionGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most practical as well as theoretical works in image processing and mathematical imaging consider images as real-valued functions, u : X → ℝg, where X denotes the base space or pixel space over which the images are defined and ℝg ⊂ ℝ is a suitable greyscale space. A variety of function spaces ℱ(X) may be considered depending on the application. Fractal image coding seeks to approximate an image function as a union of spatially-contracted and greyscale-modified copies of subsets of itself, i.e., u ≈ Tu, where T is the so-called Generalized Fractal Transform (GFT) operator. The aim of this paper is to show some recent developments of the theory of generalized fractal transforms and how they can be used for the purpose of image analysis (compression, denoising). This includes the formulation of fractal transforms over various spaces of multifunctions, i.e., set-valued and measure-valued functions. The latter may be useful in nonlocal image processing.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.264 · 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