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 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

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.015
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