Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem considered in this article is how to solve the image correspondence problem in cases where it is important to measure changes in the contour, position, and spatial orientation of bounded regions.This article introduces a computational intelligence approach to the solution of this problem with anisotropic (direction dependent) wavelets and a tolerance near set approach to detecting similarities in pairs of images.Near sets are a recent generalization of rough sets introduced by Z. Pawlak during the early 1980s.Near sets resulted from a study of the perceptual basis for rough sets.Pairs of sets containing objects with similar descriptions are known as near sets.The proposed wavelet-based image nearness measure is compared with F. Hausdorff and P. Mahalanobis image distance measures.The results of three wavelet-based image resemblance measures for several well-known images, are given.A direct benefit of this research is an effective means of grouping together (classifying) images that correspond to each other relative to minuscule similarities in the contour, position, and spatial orientation of bounded regions in the images, especially in videos containing image sequences showing varied object movements.The contribution of this article is the introduction of an anisotropic wavelet-based measure of image resemblance using a near set 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".