MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044474959 · doi:10.1109/icfhr.2012.252

Optimization of Point Selection on Digital Ink Curves

2012· article· en· W2044474959 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Image Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint (geometry)Upper and lower boundsInkwellComputer scienceAlgorithmApproximation errorSeries (stratigraphy)Selection (genetic algorithm)MathematicsDynamic programmingLinear programmingMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceGeometryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital ink curves are typically represented as series of points sampled at certain time intervals. We are interested in the problem of how to select a minimal subset of sample points to approximate a digital ink curve within a given error bound. We present an algorithm to find an approximation with a specified number of points and providing the minimum cumulative error. Alternatively, it may be used to select the minimum number of points required to satisfy an error bound. The method uses dynamic programming and has a cost linear in the number of points.

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)0.000
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 score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

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 communication0.0000.004
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Image Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207