MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017175959 · doi:10.1201/9780203489864-45

Objective Video Quality Assessment

2003· book-chapter· en· W2017175959 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Video Quality Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsQuality assessmentQuality (philosophy)Computer scienceReliability engineeringEngineeringEvaluation methodsPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital video data, stored in video databases and distributed through communication networks, is subject to various kinds of distortions during acquisition, compression, processing, transmission and reproduction. For example, lossy video compression techniques, which are almost always used to reduce the bandwidth needed to store or transmit video data, may degrade the quality during the quantization process. For another instance, the digital video bitstreams delivered over error-prone channels, such as wireless channels, may be received imperfectly due to the impairment occurred during transmission. Package-switched communication networks, such as the Internet, can cause loss or severe delay of received data packages, depending on the network conditions and the quality of services. All these transmission errors may result in distortions in the received video data. It is therefore imperative for a video service system to be able to realize and quantify the video quality degradations that occur in the system, so that it can maintain, control and possibly enhance the quality of the video data. An effective image and video quality metric is crucial for this purpose.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations350
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Video Quality AssessmentFrench-language works237,207