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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it