MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041729449 · doi:10.1080/01431161.2010.512306

A divide-and-conquer approach to contour extraction and invariant feature analysis

2010· article· en· W2041729449 on OpenAlexafffund
Marina L. Gavrilova, Russel A. Apu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Remote Sensing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Education, IndiaMinistry of Earth Sciences
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Corner detectionFeature extractionInvariant (physics)CurvatureRobustness (evolution)Spatial analysisMathematicsRemote sensingGeographyImage (mathematics)Geometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel method to process and analyse spatial information is presented in this paper. The spatial information, such as geometric shapes, object boundaries and trajectories, is extracted as a discrete sequence of points from images obtained through remote sensing. The algorithm generates contour point sequences and then uses a scale invariant analysis to extract invariant arc features. These arc features are subsequently used for object identification and recognition, as well as for image matching. The algorithm detects corner-like features in the presence of low curvature, sharp noise and discretization (spatial quantization), typical for images obtained by aerial photography, digital map scanning, satellite imaging or other remote sensing image acquisition techniques. The resulting feature vectors can be used for stable and robust object feature analysis and object detection. Experimental analysis confirms the efficiency and robustness of this method, using dataset consisting of varied shapes with considerable noise and ambiguity. The method allows not only stable feature detection, but also general shape analysis through identifying convexity, linearity and curvature properties.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Remote SensingSame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207