MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039442436 · doi:10.3166/ts.29.65-82

Limitations et comparaisons d’ordonnancement utilisant des distances couleur

2012· preprint· fr· W2039442436 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2012
Typepreprint
Languagefr
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicColor Science and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La morphologie mathématique repose sur la notion d'ordonnancement. Pour le traitement d'images couleur, l'écriture d'une relation d'ordre valide nécessite l'utilisation de distances couleur normalisées issues des espaces CIELAB ou CIELUV. Depuis les premières recommandations de la CIE (Commission internationale de l'éclairage), plusieurs distances couleur ont été proposées. Le but de cet article est d'étudier l'impact de ces formules de distance couleur dans le contexte de la morphologie mathématique couleur. Les résultats sont développés pour une nouvelle construction des opérateurs morphologiques couleur basée sur la distance dans l'espace CIELAB. Un critère de comparaison des méthodes d'ordonnancement couleur est ensuite proposé pour comparer les principales approches en morphologie mathématique avec celles basées sur une fonction de distance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.177 · 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