MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021026569 · doi:10.1068/p5249

An Information Theory Analysis of Visual Complexity and Dissimilarity

2006· article· en· W2021026569 on OpenAlexaff
D. C. Donderi

Bibliographic record

VenuePerception · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicUniversity-Industry-Government Innovation Models
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBitmapComputational complexity theoryOverlayArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Computer scienceSimple (philosophy)Pattern recognition (psychology)Set (abstract data type)MathematicsComputer visionAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The subjective complexity of a computer-generated bitmap image can be measured by magnitude estimation scaling, and its objective complexity can be measured by its compressed file size. There is a high correlation between these measures of subjective and objective complexity over a large set of marine electronic chart and radar images. The subjective dissimilarity of a pair of bitmap images can be predicted from subjective and objective measures of the complexity of each image, and from the subjective and objective complexity of the image produced by overlaying the two simple images. In addition, the subjective complexity of the image produced by overlaying two simple images can be predicted from the subjective complexity of the simple images and the subjective dissimilarity of the image pair. The results of the experiments that generated these complexity and dissimilarity judgments are consistent with a theory, outlined here, that treats objective and subjective measures of image complexity and dissimilarity as vectors in Euclidean space.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations85
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptionSame topicUniversity-Industry-Government Innovation ModelsFrench-language works237,207