MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089118341 · doi:10.1364/josaa.25.001330

Is color patchy?

2008· article· en· W2089118341 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Yoonessi, Frederick A. A. Kingdom, Samih Alqawlaq

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Optical Society of America A · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLuminanceChromatic scaleOpticsPixelFilter (signal processing)AmplitudePhysicsComputer visionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many natural scenes, shadows and shading, which are primarily luminance-defined features, proliferate. Hence one might expect that the chromatic variations of natural scenes, which more faithfully represent the layout of object surfaces, will contain relatively fewer and larger uniform regions than the luminance variations, i.e., will be more "patchy." This idea was tested using images of natural scenes that were decomposed into chromatic and luminance layers modeled as the responses of the red-green, blue-yellow, and luminance channels of the human visual system. Patchiness was defined as the portion of pixels falling within a +/- threshold in the bandpass-filtered image, averaged across multiple filter scales. The red-green layers were found to be the most patchy, followed by the blue-yellow layers, with the luminance layers the least patchy. The correlation between image-layer patchiness and the slope of the Fourier amplitude spectrum was small and negative for all layers, the maximum value being for red-green (-0.48). We conclude that the chromatic layers of natural scenes contain more uniform areas than the luminance layers and that this is unpredicted by the slope of the Fourier amplitude spectrum.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Optical Society of America ASame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207