MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061121125 · doi:10.1002/meet.2009.1450460157

Image indexing and retrieval: Current projects and a comprehensive research agenda for the future

2009· article· en· W2061121125 on OpenAlexaff
Corinne Jörgensen, Joan E. Beaudoin, Élaine Ménard, Diane Rasmussen Pennington, Besiki Stvilia

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSearch engine indexingRelevance (law)Computer scienceData scienceInformation retrievalPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This panel focuses on the major research questions needing further exploration in the areas of image organization, retrieval, and use. The panel will first have short presentations on several ongoing image research projects and presenters will briefly comment on their current research, new tools and approaches to image indexing, and the broader research areas they address. The panel will then move into an interactive mode and the moderator will present a brief outline of a broad‐based image research agenda for panel/audience dialogue, through which the agenda will be expanded and refined. In particular, current research in image indexing and retrieval focuses on the conference topic of “Thriving on Diversity – Information Opportunities in a Pluralistic World” as many newer tools (e.g., geotagging) and many new voices are joining in the image description process. The brief presentations relate to topics now appearing in the image indexing literature: information and knowledge behavior in diverse contexts, social networking in a linguistically and culturally rich environment, and challenges of harmony versus hegemony, as well as quality and relevance to particular audiences.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the American Society for Information Science and TechnologySame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207