MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088257085 · doi:10.1109/icfhr.2014.33

Novel Handwritten Words and Documents Databases of Five Middle Eastern Languages

2014· article· en· W2088257085 on OpenAlexaff
Nicola Nobile, Muna Khayyat, Louisa Lam, Ching Y. Suen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHandwritten Text Recognition Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLexiconArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingUrduSupport vector machineArabicPerceptronLinguisticsArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces new handwritten databases of selected words in the five Middle-Eastern languages of Arabic, Dari, Farsi, Pashto and Urdu. The databases share a common lexicon of forty words that are related to finance and are used in daily life. The five databases have been collected from over 1600 native writers located in four countries. Recognition results for each of the databases are also presented. Results come from three classifiers (Support Vector Machines, Modified Quadratic Discriminant Function. And Multi-layer Perceptron) which were implemented for recognition of the words based on gradient features. Given the diversity of the data, the results demonstrate the effectiveness of the implemented process in learning and recognizing samples of handwritten words from different languages. In addition, full page handwritten documents of each language are presented, with approximately forty pages per language. Each document has associated ground truth information.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHandwritten Text Recognition TechniquesFrench-language works237,207