MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010838283 · doi:10.1109/icsens.2011.6127207

Camera selection using a local image quality metric for a distributed smart camera network

2011· article· en· W2010838283 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrared Target Detection Methodologies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMetric (unit)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionSmart cameraComputer scienceCamera auto-calibrationFrame (networking)TemplateCamera resectioningSelection (genetic algorithm)Set (abstract data type)Computer graphics (images)EngineeringComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A set of camera selection templates has been developed and applied to a twelve-camera inward-looking distributed smart camera network mounted on the vertices of an icosahedral frame. These templates, designed using the fundamentals of self-organization, consist of simple rules based on a local (camera) level metric - a measure of the quality of detection of the target-of-interest for a given camera node based on a measurable target parameter. The effectiveness of the camera selections, based on the local metric, is analyzed through the performance of a global (system) level metric. The camera selection templates are shown to maintain a desirable global metric performance, while using a subset of the total available cameras. This holds true even when a single occluding target is introduced into the system.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInfrared Target Detection MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207