A Hybrid Model of Image Retrieval Based on Ontology Technology and Probabilistic Ranking
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
There are hundreds of millions of images available on the current World Wide Web. The demand for image retrieval online is growing dramatically. For multimedia documents, the typical keyword-based retrieval method has encountered problems mainly in the areas of: 1) the quality of the search result; 2) the usage of the system. With the advent and development of the semantic Web, information retrieval can widely take advantage of this technology which is expected as the next generation of Internet. However, before shifting up to the semantic Web generation, there are still numerous resources on the current Web without semantic annotation. In this paper, we propose a hybrid retrieval method which is based on the current Web, keyword-based annotation structure, and combining ontology-guided reasoning and probabilistic ranking. A Web application for image retrieval using our proposed approach has been implemented. Furthermore, the system offers recommendations to the user to demonstrate the effectiveness of the model. Experimental results show that the image retrieval recall and precision rates increase by using the proposed hybrid approach
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 | 0.000 |
| 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