MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042706494 · doi:10.1142/s0218001407005867

CONTOUR-BASED FEATURE EXTRACTION USING DUAL-TREE COMPLEX WAVELETS

2007· article· en· W2042706494 on OpenAlexafffund
Guang Yi Chen, Wenfeng Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsComplex wavelet transformHarmonic wavelet transformFourier transformPattern recognition (psychology)Invariant (physics)Artificial intelligenceWavelet transformWaveletComputer scienceStationary wavelet transformMathematicsScalingDiscrete wavelet transformMathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A contour-based feature extraction method is proposed by using the dual-tree complex wavelet transform and the Fourier transform. Features are extracted from the 1D signals r and θ, and hence the processing memory and time are reduced. The approximate shift-invariant property of the dual-tree complex wavelet transform and the Fourier transform guarantee that this method is invariant to translation, rotation and scaling. The method is used to recognize aircrafts from different rotation angles and scaling factors. Experimental results show that it achieves better recognition rates than that which uses only the Fourier features and Granlund's method. Its success is due to the desirable shift invariant property of the dual-tree complex wavelet transform, the translation invariant property of the Fourier spectrum, and our new complete representation of the outer contour of the pattern.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial IntelligenceSame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207