MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090978288 · doi:10.1142/s021946780600232x

MTAR: A ROBUST 2D SHAPE REPRESENTATION

2006· article· en· W2090978288 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 Image and Graphics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaxima and minimaAffine transformationSmoothingRepresentation (politics)Wavelet transformCurvatureMathematicsScale (ratio)Boundary (topology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)WaveletComputer visionGeometryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a new 2D shape Multiscale Triangle-Area Representation (MTAR) method is proposed. This representation utilizes a simple geometric principle, that is, the area of the triangles formed by the shape boundary points. The wavelet transform is used for smoothing and decomposing the shape boundaries into multiscale levels. At each scale level, a TAR image and the corresponding Maxima-Minima lines are obtained. The resulting MTAR is more robust to noise, less complex, and more selective than similar methods such as the curvature scale-space (CSS). Furthermore, the MTAR is invariant to the general affine transformations. The proposed MTAR is tested and compared to the CSS method using MPEG-7 CE-shape-1 part B and Columbia Object Image Library (COIL-20) datasets. The results show that the proposed MTAR outperforms the CSS method for the conducted tests.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.263 · 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