MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033366399 · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2010.5540213

Dynamic texture recognition based on distributions of spacetime oriented structure

2010· article· en· W2033366399 on OpenAlexaff
Konstantinos G. Derpa, Richard P. Wildes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTexture (cosmology)Representation (politics)Computer scienceHistogramArtificial intelligenceAggregate (composite)Matching (statistics)Image textureComputer visionOrientation (vector space)Motion (physics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Texture synthesisImage (mathematics)Image processingMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the challenge of recognizing dynamic textures based on their observed visual dynamics. Typically, the term dynamic texture is used with reference to image sequences of various natural processes that exhibit stochastic dynamics (e.g., smoke, water and windblown vegetation); although, it applies equally well to images of simpler dynamics when analyzed in terms of aggregate region properties (e.g., uniform motion of elements in traffic video). In this paper, a novel approach to dynamic texture representation and an associated recognition method are proposed. The approach pursued here recognizes dynamic textures based on matching distributions (histograms) of spacetime orientation structure. Empirical evaluation on a standard database with controls to remove the effects of identical viewpoint demonstrates that the proposed approach achieves superior performance over alternative state-of-the-art methods.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations74
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207