MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080501520 · doi:10.1504/ijica.2012.046779

Knowledge-based image segmentation using swarm intelligence techniques

2012· article· en· W2080501520 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

VenueInternational Journal of Innovative Computing and Applications · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCellular Automata and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSwarm behaviourArtificial intelligenceImage segmentationSwarm intelligenceSegmentationSegmentation-based object categorizationImage (mathematics)Computer visionCellular automatonScale-space segmentationPixelPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningParticle swarm optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intelligent techniques such as swarm intelligence techniques rarely have been used for image segmentation or boundary detection. The limited increasing number of agents in the environment and how to find efficiently the right threshold in an image, develop a flexible design, and fully autonomous system that supports different platforms makes the task challenging. Considering challenges this paper presents a swarm-based intelligent technique for image segmentation that is based on a fully agent-based model system, called swarm intelligence-based image segmentation (SIBIS). SIBIS adopts a cellular automata technique where the swarm of agents navigate through the image and operate on their pixels and local regions. Three features such as swarm intelligence, agent-based modelling and cellular automata are integrated to make SIBIS efficient. SIBIS system can find the image segmentation threshold automatically without changing the background or the texture of the image.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.334 · 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