MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015790018 · doi:10.1007/s11806-010-0176-2

A new conception of image texture and remote sensing image segmentation based on Markov random field

2010· article· en· W2015790018 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

VenueGeo-spatial Information Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicRemote Sensing and Land Use
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarkov random fieldArtificial intelligenceImage textureImage segmentationComputer scienceComputer visionMarkov chainImage (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Random fieldSegmentationMathematicsMachine learningStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The texture analysis is often discussed in image processing domain, but most methods are limited within gray-level image or color image, and the present conception of texture is defined mainly based on gray-level image of single band. One of the essential characters of remote sensing image is multidimensional or even high-dimensional, and the traditional texture conception cannot contain enough information for these. Therefore, it is necessary to pursuit a proper texture definition based on remote sensing images, which is the first discussion in this paper. This paper describes the mapping model of spectral vector in two-dimensional image space using Markov random field (MRF), establishes a texture model of multiband remote sensing image based on MRF, and analyzes the calculations of Gibbs potential energy and Gibbs parameters. Further, this paper also analyzes the limitations of the traditional Gibbs model, prefers a new Gibbs model avoiding estimation of parameters, and presents a new texture segmentation algorithm for hyperspectral remote sensing image later.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.220 · 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