MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036343126 · doi:10.1109/ciisp.2007.369181

Human-Controlled Vs. Semi-automatic Content-Based Image Retrieval

2007· article· en· W2036343126 on OpenAlexaff
Kambiz Jarrah, Ling Guan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRelevance feedbackContent-based image retrievalRelevance (law)Image retrievalCluster analysisWorkloadProcess (computing)Scheme (mathematics)Information retrievalData miningArtificial intelligenceMachine learningImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The overall objective of this paper is to present n methodology for reducing the human workload through adapting an automatic scheme for content-based image retrieval (CBIR) engines. The proposed system utilizes an unsupervised hierarchical clustering algorithm, known as the directed self-organizing tree map (DSOTM) that aims to closely mimic the process of information classification thought to be at work in the human brain. In further refine the search process and increase retrieval accuracy, a semi-automatic relevance feedback approach is presented in this work. The semi-automatic scheme refers to a relevance feedback CBIR engine, structured around the DSOTM algorithm. This system aims to learn from and adapt to different users' subjectivity under the guidance of an additional objective verdict provided by the DSOTM. Comprehensive comparisons with the rank-based, relevance feedback, and automatic CBIR engines, demonstrate feasibility of adapting the semi-automatic approach

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207