MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048647542 · doi:10.1145/2770879

Where2Stand

2015· article· en· W2048647542 on OpenAlexaff
Yinting Wang, Mingli Song, Dacheng Tao, Yong Rui, Jiajun Bu, Ah Chung Tsoi, Shaojie Zhuo, Ping Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVisual Attention and Saliency Detection
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer sciencePhotographySet (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceConstruct (python library)PortraitComputer visionVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People often take photographs at tourist sites and these pictures usually have two main elements: a person in the foreground and scenery in the background. This type of “souvenir photo” is one of the most common photos clicked by tourists. Although algorithms that aid a user-photographer in taking a well-composed picture of a scene exist [Ni et al. 2013], few studies have addressed the issue of properly positioning human subjects in photographs. In photography, the common guidelines of composing portrait images exist. However, these rules usually do not consider the background scene. Therefore, in this article, we investigate human-scenery positional relationships and construct a photographic assistance system to optimize the position of human subjects in a given background scene, thereby assisting the user in capturing high-quality souvenir photos. We collect thousands of well-composed portrait photographs to learn human-scenery aesthetic composition rules. In addition, we define a set of negative rules to exclude undesirable compositions. Recommendation results are achieved by combining the first learned positive rule with our proposed negative rules. We implement the proposed system on an Android platform in a smartphone. The system demonstrates its efficacy by producing well-composed souvenir photos.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5520.353

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.241 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and TechnologySame topicVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFrench-language works237,207