MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025635041 · doi:10.1145/1754393.1754394

Detecting visually similar Web pages

2010· article· en· W2025635041 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

VenueACM Transactions on Internet Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGestalt psychologyWeb pageSimilarity (geometry)World Wide WebRealization (probability)Information retrievalPhishingArtificial intelligenceThe InternetImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a novel approach for detecting visual similarity between two Web pages. The proposed approach applies Gestalt theory and considers a Web page as a single indivisible entity. The concept of supersignals, as a realization of Gestalt principles, supports our contention that Web pages must be treated as indivisible entities. We objectify, and directly compare, these indivisible supersignals using algorithmic complexity theory. We illustrate our approach by applying it to the problem of detecting phishing scams. Via a large-scale, real-world case study, we demonstrate that 1) our approach effectively detects similar Web pages; and 2) it accuractely distinguishes legitimate and phishing pages.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.236 · 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