MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087915685 · doi:10.1117/12.417179

Texture analysis of images using principal component analysis

2001· article· en· W2087915685 on OpenAlexaff
Manish H. Bharati, John F. MacGregor

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrayscaleArtificial intelligencePrincipal component analysisPixelPattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionComputer scienceImage textureMathematicsImage processingImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extracting texture/roughness information from grayscale or multispectral images for off-line quality control, or on-line feedback control is a difficult problem. Several statistical, structural & spectral texture analysis approaches for grayscale images (using various pre-defined filters etc.) have been suggested in the literature1, 2 In this paper we propose a new approach based on Multivariate Image Analysis techniques using multi-way Principal Component Analysis. Prior to analysis the grayscale images are transformed into three-dimensional pixel intensity arrays through spatial shifting of the image in several directions followed by stacking the shifted images on top of each other. The resulting three -dimensional image data is a multivariate image where the third (i.e. variable) dimension is the spatial shifting index. Multi-way PCA is then used to extract features (PC scores), which contain the greatest amount of variation. Plots of the observed values of these scores against one another define a score space. Certain regions of this score space contain the texture information of the grayscale image. By masking these regions and tracking the number of pixels having features that fall in these regions, or by comparing the score spaces with template exemplars, one is able to monitor changes in the image surface textural properties. The approach is illustrated using a set of grayscale images of the surface of steel sheet. Based on the textural features extracted from the surface images a simple classification scheme is devised in which each sample image is assigned into one of two classes representing good or bad surface characteristics.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.248 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations40
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207